NationStates Jolt Archive

So, not too long ago, I posted a long thread about names - specifically about name changes at marriage and what my fiance and I might decide to do. In the end, we decided that we would both hyphenate. We'll both have the same surname, we'll both have to go through the hassle, and I shouldn't have any problems professionally. We went and got the license Tuesday. =)

That night was apparently the first time his father heard of our intentions. And he had a COW. At one point, he threatened not to come to the wedding at all. So, here comes the gender role part of the story. He had no problem with me changing my name. In fact, he kept bringing up the fact that his wife had taken her maiden name as her middle name, but that he hadn't taken it, because he "wasn't born with it" and "wasn't a [her maiden name]."

It really got me thinking about gender role enforcement. Much of the time, I think of it as a voluntary thing - that people intentionally seek to enforce gender norms on people. But I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think he even realizes that he is doing it - or that the comments he was making are incredibly misogynistic (after all, she certainly wasn't born a [his surname])

It really makes me wonder how much of gender role enforcement is simply a matter of people having something they never even thought about. This is a guy who would never dream of suggesting that women were in any way "below" men, yet he is adamant that this particular gender role - one that he probably doesn't even realize is a tradition based in a system where marriage was more akin to a man buying a woman from her father than it was to a mutual agreement - should be strictly held to. Why this one and not others? And does he really not realize the implications behind it?

Discuss.

Let him huff and puff. If he wants to be stuck in his Draconian world and not progress it's his business. You and your life partner made the choice.

It's the choice of the two partners, not the parents. The parents can moan and groan, but they have no control since you're both consenting adults making your own decisions. They're just unable and unwilling to accept the choice.

Let him huff and puff. If he wants to be stuck in his Draconian world and not progress it's his business. You and your life partner made the choice.

It's the choice of the two partners, not the parents. The parents can moan and groan, but they have no control since you're both consenting adults making your own decisions. They're just unable and unwilling to accept the choice.

Oh, I know this. We're not changing anything because of it - and with the paperwork already in, I'm not sure that we could have.

I just wonder about the cognitive dissonance here. Like I said, he generally isn't "stuck in a Draconian world." He's definitely pretty conservative in the scheme of things, but gender roles generally aren't an issue. And yet, in this one case, it is.

It just gets me wondering about how many little prejudices people might be enforcing (or, well, trying to enforce) without even realizing that they are doing it.

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.

I don't know about invented a new one, but I've heard of couples who either took parts of each and created a new one, or who took a completely different name that was somehow important to them.

In most states, it is much harder for a man to change his name than a woman when that name change is due to marriage. A woman can generally simply do it as part of the marriage application (although there is paperwork after the wedding as well). A man, in most states, would have to go through the conventional name-change procedure, which is costly and a judge can stop it in its tracks on a whim. But there are four states where the name change is equally available to both men and women. Luckily, I live in one. =)

he sounds like a tool. sorry.

I've always found the hyphenation thing silly. If it was up to me, I'd just keep both our last names if she doesn't want to change to mine. Really doesn't bother me too much if she doesn't take my surname.

The problem comes in when you have kids. What will be their surname?

Hyphenated names are cumbersome, and combined names can be confusing to some(As the child would have a different last name than his/her parents).

A conundrum.

I've always found the hyphenation thing silly. If it was up to me, I'd just keep both our last names if she doesn't want to change to mine. Really doesn't bother me too much if she doesn't take my surname.

Oh, I know this. We're not changing anything because of it - and with the paperwork already in, I'm not sure that we could have.

I just wonder about the cognitive dissonance here. Like I said, he generally isn't "stuck in a Draconian world." He's definitely pretty conservative in the scheme of things, but gender roles generally aren't an issue. And yet, in this one case, it is.

It just gets me wondering about how many little prejudices people might be enforcing (or, well, trying to enforce) without even realizing that they are doing it.

It might have something to do with the fact that this isn't simply an issue of gender. It's also an issue of legacy: men generally get some satisfaction in knowing that their sons, and sons especially, will outlive them and continue to mark them as having lived. How? Through the continued existence of their name, Dem. By not only taking on a new name, but your husband also taking on a new name, you have in some sense erased the significance of his raising a child to adulthood, because in 300 years, it will not be readily apparent that the X-Y's and the ancient X's ever had any relationship whatsoever. What's more, you've erased it in the course of his own lifetime.

Now I don't know that this is exactly the best reason to throw a hissy fit and threaten not to come to the wedding, but it's not cognitive dissonance to want something tangible to show "I was here, and I made a difference". Yes, the son still lives, but if the name signifying him changes, who will know?

I've always found the hyphenation thing silly. If it was up to me, I'd just keep both our last names if she doesn't want to change to mine. Really doesn't bother me too much if she doesn't take my surname.
I cannot wait until all the kids that have hyphenated names begin marrying and having kids, that take both parents names. Hopefully, it is the cruel and twisted couple decides to lead with a double first name. Could you imagine being named Jessica-Lynn Prince-Wilson-Neubauer-Andrews?

Maybe he just doesn't like your surname :p

I knew someone once, who, despite being a conservative Seventh-Day Adventist, decided to keep her surname when she got married because she didn't want to be called Donna Dickie.

The problem comes in when you have kids. What will be their surname?

Hyphenated names are cumbersome, and combined names can be confusing to some(As the child would have a different last name than his/her parents).

A conundrum.

Very good point; I've never really considered having kids. Nevertheless, while I find hyphenated names kinda silly, they really don't bother me at all. I certainly wouldn't have a temper tantrum over it.

Well, as far as unconscious gender role enforcement goes, I generally only hold the door open for women when entering or exiting a building/room.
I dunno if that counts. I generally don't consider it at the time, but then go >.< when I realize I've done it again and just let the door close in some guy's face.

It might have something to do with the fact that this isn't simply an issue of gender. It's also an issue of legacy: men generally get some satisfaction in knowing that their sons, and sons especially, will outlive them and continue to mark them as having lived. How? Through the continued existence of their name, Dem. By not only taking on a new name, but your husband also taking on a new name, you have in some sense erased the significance of his raising a child to adulthood, because in 300 years, it will not be readily apparent that the X-Y's and the ancient X's ever had any relationship whatsoever. What's more, you've erased it in the course of his own lifetime.

Now I don't know that this is exactly the best reason to throw a hissy fit and threaten not to come to the wedding, but it's not cognitive dissonance to want something tangible to show "I was here, and I made a difference". Yes, the son still lives, but if the name signifying him changes, who will know?

And it isn't mysogynistic to disallow the woman who birthed the child the ability to grace the child with her surname? Father's aren't the only ones who would appreciate a legacy.

And Dem, do you still reside in Dallas?

EDIT: And congrats.

I'll go with whatever sounds best. My last name, Colts, is pretty nice, but if her last name is "Waffleorgy" than I'll gladly change my surname.

We're still getting over thousands of years of male dominated culture, and it wasn't until recently that we're trying to even things out. So of course it'll take some time until everyone starts thinking rationally about this sort of thing.

I know all about enforced gender roles. I've been a very unhappy victim of them all my life. I really don't get people who are so adamant about them.

That's not to say I wouldn't be pursuing the course I currently am, but it would certainly be easier if people didn't have such rigid expectations about gender.

I cannot wait until all the kids that have hyphenated names begin marrying and having kids, that take both parents names. Hopefully, it is the cruel and twisted couple decides to lead with a double first name. Could you imagine being named Jessica-Lynn Prince-Wilson-Neubauer-Andrews?

Yeah I thought about too. I suppose you could always condense it into an Acronym.... JeLPWiNA

It really got me thinking about gender role enforcement. Much of the time, I think of it as a voluntary thing - that people intentionally seek to enforce gender norms on people. I agree, I think that gender roles have become so ingrained that much of their enforcement is unconscious.

It might have something to do with the fact that this isn't simply an issue of gender. It's also an issue of legacy: men generally get some satisfaction in knowing that their sons, and sons especially, will outlive them and continue to mark them as having lived. How? Through the continued existence of their name, Dem. By not only taking on a new name, but your husband also taking on a new name, you have in some sense erased the significance of his raising a child to adulthood, because in 300 years, it will not be readily apparent that the X-Y's and the ancient X's ever had any relationship whatsoever. What's more, you've erased it in the course of his own lifetime.

Now I don't know that this is exactly the best reason to throw a hissy fit and threaten not to come to the wedding, but it's not cognitive dissonance to want something tangible to show "I was here, and I made a difference". Yes, the son still lives, but if the name signifying him changes, who will know?That's a separate gender-related issue. After all, if the father had had a daughter, there wouldn't be any question of the daughter carrying on the family name, now would there?

It really got me thinking about gender role enforcement. Much of the time, I think of it as a voluntary thing - that people intentionally seek to enforce gender norms on people. But I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think he even realizes that he is doing it - or that the comments he was making are incredibly misogynistic (after all, she certainly wasn't born a [his surname])
Wait, how were they misogynistic? Sexist maybe, but misogynistic is going more then a little far, it's way too far.

The way I see it, I'm not particularly attached to my last name, but if I'm hypothetically getting married to a guy with an awful last name, I'll either encourage him to take mine or just keep mine and confuse people nicely.
Of course, if I go crazy and get a PhD and get married after this occurs, then I'll be keeping my last name, perhaps hyphenating it. If the hypothetical wedding occurs before the Dr goes in front of my name though, I'd consider taking his name.

I really don't care, but hyphenating both names seems to be a reasonable solution and if a parent has issues with that then they can fuck off and shove their negative attitude up their ass. They'll come to their senses eventually... especially if grandchildren enter the picture.

Well, I'd consider convincing my hypothetical wife into taking my first name, but that would probably only confuse the issue. And as hot as my hypothetical wife may be, screaming 'Oh Mike!' in bed just doesn't seem to do it for me. (Unless it's her screaming it. See, I'm already confused.)

Yeah I thought about too. I suppose you could always condense it into an Acronym.... JeLPWiNA
This pleases me.

if I ever get deated, that is my new login.:D

The problem comes in when you have kids. What will be their surname?

Hyphenated names are cumbersome, and combined names can be confusing to some(As the child would have a different last name than his/her parents).

A conundrum.
There are two profs at my school that hyphenated their names and they decided that their kid, if it was a girl, would take her mother's maiden name first and her father's name second and if it was a boy, the opposite would occur. Their daughter goes by her mother's maiden name primarily, I've never seen her write it out as being both names hyphenated or giving her father's last name.

Well, I'd consider convincing my hypothetical wife into taking my first name, but that would probably only confuse the issue. And as hot as my hypothetical wife may be, screaming 'Oh Mike!' in bed just doesn't seem to do it for me. (Unless it's her screaming it. See, I'm already confused.)

Larry the Cable Guy had a joke about that in one of his standup specials on Comedy Central.

Pretty much the same joke, in fact.

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.

I know of a couple who combined their last names when they got married. Completely unhyphenated. She was a Mahan, he was a Fitz. They and their children are the Fitzmahans.

Larry the Cable Guy had a joke about that in one of his standup specials on Comedy Central.

Pretty much the same joke, in fact.

Damn. Beat to the punch by Larry the Cable Guy...

Well that's funny right there...

You would not believe the amount of crap I've taken because I kept my maiden name. Not from my family, mind, but from total strangers. A lady at the Social Security office got up in my face when I went in to get a new SS card. "Are you changing your name?"

Me: "No."

Her (snidely): "Why not?"

She almost made like she wasn't going to let me get a new card. I hate people sometimes.

What ever happened to the good-old-days of clans and animal surnames?

Of course, most clans were exogamous, but not all were, and not all required you to change your clan.

Of course, I'm just trying to spread the Gordon Clan agenda, but meh, that's me.

I always get a kick out of hearing about gender roles. My dad is self-employed, so he was always around the house when I was little, and my mom worked about 80 hours a week most of my life.

EDIT: According to many people, this is supposed to make me very messed up.

Meh!

To each his own.

If you hyphenate or keep your name simply because you think you are being oppressed then you need to think some things over.

Surnames don't mean much anymore.

My wife debated what she wanted and ended up hyphenating.

I wouldn't change my name. Some of it's old fashioned and there are some other reasons. I didn't expect her to take mine.

But that's just me.....

not necessarily about name changes, but gender role enforcement I guess...

the other day in play group the facilitator was asking all the kids what they wanted to be when they grow up, so my 3yo says "I want to be a Gastroenterologist" to which everyone said 'aww' while her best friend next to her says "I want to be a ballet dancer" and everyone looks at him like he is crazy......what's up with that?! why was everyone so happy that she wants to be a doctor, but unhappy that he wants to dance. I got the feeling that if she had said she wanted to be a ballet dancer and he wanted to be a doctor, both would have gotten the "aww"......then later I get a comment from another mom that they think my kid's friend "might be homosexual" and from another that he "is a wussy" I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? and what if he is homosexual? what's their problem? he's 4 freaking years old.... and what's up with calling him a "wussy"?! I hate that word, it's like demeaning to women and stuff. [/feminist rant]

oh, and yeah, I did call them out on it, and yeah they are pissed, I even got a nasty email from one of them about how I "need to turn up the femininity" before my husband goes for a real woman......to which I replied that my husband likes that I have opinions and wouldn't trust a woman without them.

What ever happened to the good-old-days of clans and animal surnames?

Of course, most clans were exogamous, but not all were, and not all required you to change your clan.

Of course, I'm just trying to spread the Gordon Clan agenda, but meh, that's me.

Hmmmm!

I will have to spread the word of Clan Donald! :)

oh, and I just recently found out that you could pick a name at random and change your last name to that.....if I had known about that when I was getting married we would have totally done that since neither of us really has a strong connection to our families or family names, we could have picked out something cool and started fresh......but it's too late now and too much hassle.

It would have been cool though, "new family, new name".

then later I get a comment from another mom that they think my kid's friend "might be homosexual" and from another that he "is a wussy" I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? and what if he is homosexual? [/feminist rant]

Well there are hetro ballet dancers. Sure. But the majority tend to be gay. Kind of like opera singers. When my wife was performing, the majority tended to be gay.

Is your friend a Bible thumper? Might be a case of fear of the ebil gay cooties.

oh, and I just recently found out that you could pick a name at random and change your last name to that.....if I had known about that when I was getting married we would have totally done that since neither of us really has a strong connection to our families or family names, we could have picked out something cool and started fresh......but it's too late now and too much hassle.

It would have been cool though, "new family, new name".

Actually you can go by any name you want; as long as you don't use it for fraudulent purposes.

Is your friend a Bible thumper? Might be a case of fear of the ebil gay cooties.

Where I lived was, well, similar to the Phil Ochs song "Love me I'm a Liberal". As a kid a lot of people talked (not in front of me or my parents, but it got out) about how I might turn out gay, and some suggested it was because of how I was being brought up.

Where I lived was, well, similar to the Phil Ochs song "Love me I'm a Liberal". As a kid a lot of people talked (not in front of me or my parents, but it got out) about how I might turn out gay, and some suggested it was because of how I was being brought up.

Oh man! That kind of simple minded thought drives me bonkers! How do you raise a person to be a homosexual? Hetro for that matter? I guess you were shown gay porn mags instead of straight porn right? Or did they take you to Streisand concerts?

I sort of know how you feel. Some of my cracker relatives make comments like that.....

Oh man! That kind of simple minded thought drives me bonkers! How do you raise a person to be a homosexual? Hetro for that matter? I guess you were shown gay porn mags instead of straight porn right? Or did they take you to Streisand concerts?


It was a small town, and people were just a little unsettled that my mother decided not to end her career when I was born. Since my dad worked at home, he became the stay at home parent for a good part of my life. Everybody was convinced this would lead to my ruin.

It might have something to do with the fact that this isn't simply an issue of gender. It's also an issue of legacy: men generally get some satisfaction in knowing that their sons, and sons especially, will outlive them and continue to mark them as having lived. How? Through the continued existence of their name, Dem. By not only taking on a new name, but your husband also taking on a new name, you have in some sense erased the significance of his raising a child to adulthood, because in 300 years, it will not be readily apparent that the X-Y's and the ancient X's ever had any relationship whatsoever. What's more, you've erased it in the course of his own lifetime.

Now I don't know that this is exactly the best reason to throw a hissy fit and threaten not to come to the wedding, but it's not cognitive dissonance to want something tangible to show "I was here, and I made a difference". Yes, the son still lives, but if the name signifying him changes, who will know?

What about the mothers legacy? or the daughters legacy ... you tried to counter the claim of sexism by being more sexist? seems rather silly to me

Give him the option of either you change your surname to:
the double-barrelled one, or
your wife-to-be's surname.

which one would he prefer his grandchildren to have?

failing that, tell him you're changing your surname to Knobcheese.

It was a small town, and people were just a little unsettled that my mother decided not to end her career when I was born. Since my dad worked at home, he became the stay at home parent for a good part of my life. Everybody was convinced this would lead to my ruin.
And yet, here you are posting on NS.
that showed them!

oh...wait...

And yet, here you are posting on NS.
that showed them!

oh...wait...
I think you are hurting our cause more than you are helping it.
*spikes a glass of OJ with plutonium*
*offers DH a glass of OJ.

I think you are hurting our cause more than you are helping it.
*spikes a glass of OJ with plutonium*
*offers DH a glass of OJ.
fresh squeezed OJ?

mmmmm....

I love feshly-squeezed OJ.

take that you double-murdering bastard!

not necessarily about name changes, but gender role enforcement I guess...

the other day in play group the facilitator was asking all the kids what they wanted to be when they grow up, so my 3yo says "I want to be a Gastroenterologist" to which everyone said 'aww' while her best friend next to her says "I want to be a ballet dancer" and everyone looks at him like he is crazy......what's up with that?! why was everyone so happy that she wants to be a doctor, but unhappy that he wants to dance. I got the feeling that if she had said she wanted to be a ballet dancer and he wanted to be a doctor, both would have gotten the "aww"......then later I get a comment from another mom that they think my kid's friend "might be homosexual" and from another that he "is a wussy" I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? and what if he is homosexual? what's their problem? he's 4 freaking years old.... and what's up with calling him a "wussy"?! I hate that word, it's like demeaning to women and stuff. [/feminist rant]

oh, and yeah, I did call them out on it, and yeah they are pissed, I even got a nasty email from one of them about how I "need to turn up the femininity" before my husband goes for a real woman......to which I replied that my husband likes that I have opinions and wouldn't trust a woman without them.

Sheesh, what morons.

I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? [/feminist rant]
Not only do I see nothing wrong with a boy wanting to be a dancer, if I ever had a son I'd encourage him.
Why?
Cause more females than males dance for a start and, as already mentioned, most guy dancers are gay.
Add that female dancers have hot hard bodies.
Thus the ratio of hot sexy women to interested available guys is unbelievably high.

A male hetero in the dance industry is going to be beating the chicks off with a shitty stick.

lucky sod.

So, not too long ago, I posted a long thread about names - specifically about name changes at marriage and what my fiance and I might decide to do. In the end, we decided that we would both hyphenate. We'll both have the same surname, we'll both have to go through the hassle, and I shouldn't have any problems professionally. We went and got the license Tuesday. =)

That night was apparently the first time his father heard of our intentions. And he had a COW. At one point, he threatened not to come to the wedding at all. So, here comes the gender role part of the story. He had no problem with me changing my name. In fact, he kept bringing up the fact that his wife had taken her maiden name as her middle name, but that he hadn't taken it, because he "wasn't born with it" and "wasn't a [her maiden name]."

It really got me thinking about gender role enforcement. Much of the time, I think of it as a voluntary thing - that people intentionally seek to enforce gender norms on people. But I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think he even realizes that he is doing it - or that the comments he was making are incredibly misogynistic (after all, she certainly wasn't born a [his surname])

It really makes me wonder how much of gender role enforcement is simply a matter of people having something they never even thought about. This is a guy who would never dream of suggesting that women were in any way "below" men, yet he is adamant that this particular gender role - one that he probably doesn't even realize is a tradition based in a system where marriage was more akin to a man buying a woman from her father than it was to a mutual agreement - should be strictly held to. Why this one and not others? And does he really not realize the implications behind it?

Discuss.
A lot of it is because, in our world, "male" is seen as the default human state. There are a lot of fundamental assumptions that grow out of this, and one big one is the package of all the little things women are just expected to give up because they are female. Names are just one of the many items in this package.

I'm sure you also know that people assume you will be the one to give up your career in the event you have a child. You are also assumed to be the one responsible for cleaning your home and giving up your free time to do the pointless annoying chores that nobody likes doing.

(Side experiment: check out advertisements for cleaning products on TV some time, and count the number of ads where you see kids and men creating messes followed by Mommy cleaning them up. Now count the ones where a male of any stripe is shown cleaning up somebody else's mess.)

Happily, many of these assumptions are dying out. And it's largely due to people like you and your partner, simply because you refuse to mindlessly go along with such assumptions. It's not about a big armed rebellion, it's just about a lot of normal people realizing that it's fucking stupid to define our roles in life based on which genitals we've got.

What about the mothers legacy? or the daughters legacy ... you tried to counter the claim of sexism by being more sexist? seems rather silly to me
And there's another of those little assumptions I was talking about.

Men want to have legacies, and are assumed to deserve them. Women are assumed to either not want legacies, or to not deserve them (or both).

(Side experiment: check out advertisements for cleaning products on TV some time, and count the number of ads where you see kids and men creating messes followed by Mommy cleaning them up. Now count the ones where a male of any stripe is shown cleaning up somebody else's mess.)
Couldn't one equally make the claim they discriminate against men by assuming they're all disgustingly messy and all women are neat and tidy?

Couldn't one equally make the claim they discriminate against men by assuming they're all disgustingly messy and all women are neat and tidy?
Sure. Just like how sitcoms present men as fat, ugly, stupid, and incompetant, but always having hot, smart, capable wives. It's a pretty pathetic picture of men, isn't it?

Of course, the result at the end of the day is still that women are expected to do the chores. Given that MEN are the ones producing the overwhelming majority of those commercials and shows, it kinda makes you think that perhaps they see it as a good deal...

It's like this cartoon that my parents have had on the wall of our kitchen for years. It's a picture of this guy banging a can against the counter over and over, while a can openner sits about a foot away. The caption reads, "The less you appear to know, the less you will be expected to do."

So gee whiz, I guess men are just naturally too stupid or too messy to be able to clean up after themselves! Good thing they have smart, clean women around who can do the chores for them!

Hmm.

I know which kind of "discrimination" I'd rather be subjected to.

All right, point taken, just saying both genders are negatively stereotyped, but true that women get the worst of it. Although since it's comparing a stereotypical role to stereotypical behaviour this may be apples-oranges. I'll shut up now.

All right, point taken, just saying both genders are negatively stereotyped, but true that women get the worst of it. Although since it's comparing a stereotypical role to stereotypical behaviour this may be apples-oranges. I'll shut up now.
Hehe, believe me, I'm with you on the whole "patriarchy hurts men, too" thing.

One of the major reasons I don't buy into all the gendered BS in my society is because it all paints men as insecure cry babies who need to be fluffled and cared for and generally treated like giant infants for their entire lives. The men I've known are nothing like that.

Dem's fella is obviously also not one of the cry-baby types. His dad, on the other hand, has probably lived his whole life in an environment where it was always assumed that his ego got coddled and pampered. His name, his legacy, his desire to put his mark on his kids. His wife's? Not so much, but not because he's an intentionally mean dude. More because he's just perpetually surrounded by the convenient assumption that This Is The Way Things Are.

Interesting debate, even if it's not one that I'd ever get into in 'real life.'

If names became an issue, I'd keep mine and she'd keep hers, if the only other choice was some hyphenated mess.

I suppose I might like to keep one tradition if kids were ever involved.. my dad's name is my middle name, and his dad's name is his middle name, and so on, going back as long as names were ever recorded. But the surname isn't involved in that system, so it wouldn't be an issue.

I've always found the hyphenation thing silly. If it was up to me, I'd just keep both our last names if she doesn't want to change to mine. Really doesn't bother me too much if she doesn't take my surname.

I always thought it was too, until I was put in the situation to have to choose.

Interesting though, that it "doesn't bother you too much" if she doesn't take yours, but you'd apparently never even consider taking hers.

The problem comes in when you have kids. What will be their surname?

Hyphenated names are cumbersome, and combined names can be confusing to some(As the child would have a different last name than his/her parents).

A conundrum.

Our kids will most likely carry his original surname (the last one in the hyphenation). We're thinking of hyphenating theirs as well, but we're leaning towards just using the one name.


It might have something to do with the fact that this isn't simply an issue of gender. It's also an issue of legacy: men generally get some satisfaction in knowing that their sons, and sons especially, will outlive them and continue to mark them as having lived. How? Through the continued existence of their name, Dem. By not only taking on a new name, but your husband also taking on a new name, you have in some sense erased the significance of his raising a child to adulthood, because in 300 years, it will not be readily apparent that the X-Y's and the ancient X's ever had any relationship whatsoever. What's more, you've erased it in the course of his own lifetime.

You've obviously got the cognitive dissonance problem here too. The fact that you restrict the discussion to sons only demonstrates quite clearly that it is a gender issue. Men are supposed to act differently and somehow value their names more than women. How can that be seen as anything but a gender issue?

If this man had never had any sons, and had only had daughters, he wouldn't have thought twice about them all changing their names at marriage.

Meanwhile, we're talking about a huge family here. His surname is not at risk of dying out. His oldest son has already had two sons, both of whom carry the surname. Our children will most likely carry it as well.

Now I don't know that this is exactly the best reason to throw a hissy fit and threaten not to come to the wedding, but it's not cognitive dissonance to want something tangible to show "I was here, and I made a difference". Yes, the son still lives, but if the name signifying him changes, who will know?

The name isn't exactly getting lost. It's still there. In fact, we'll most likely go by it (we're way too lazy to stick to using a hyphenated name in social situations). Our children will carry it. The grandchildren he already has carry it.

And, once again, this is a man who wouldn't have thought twice about a daughter changing her name. Is a son more of an accomplishment than a daughter?


And Dem, do you still reside in Dallas?

Yup, why?

EDIT: And congrats.

Thanks. =)

not necessarily about name changes, but gender role enforcement I guess...

the other day in play group the facilitator was asking all the kids what they wanted to be when they grow up, so my 3yo says "I want to be a Gastroenterologist" to which everyone said 'aww' while her best friend next to her says "I want to be a ballet dancer" and everyone looks at him like he is crazy......what's up with that?! why was everyone so happy that she wants to be a doctor, but unhappy that he wants to dance. I got the feeling that if she had said she wanted to be a ballet dancer and he wanted to be a doctor, both would have gotten the "aww"......then later I get a comment from another mom that they think my kid's friend "might be homosexual" and from another that he "is a wussy" I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? and what if he is homosexual? what's their problem? he's 4 freaking years old.... and what's up with calling him a "wussy"?! I hate that word, it's like demeaning to women and stuff. [/feminist rant]

oh, and yeah, I did call them out on it, and yeah they are pissed, I even got a nasty email from one of them about how I "need to turn up the femininity" before my husband goes for a real woman......to which I replied that my husband likes that I have opinions and wouldn't trust a woman without them.

Wow.....just wow.

Dem's fella is obviously also not one of the cry-baby types. His dad, on the other hand, has probably lived his whole life in an environment where it was always assumed that his ego got coddled and pampered. His name, his legacy, his desire to put his mark on his kids. His wife's? Not so much, but not because he's an intentionally mean dude. More because he's just perpetually surrounded by the convenient assumption that This Is The Way Things Are.

And that's really what I think it is. This is a man who would never expect a woman to give up her career - even if she has kids. He and his wife both work (and have throughout their marriage) and both share chores like cooking and cleaning up around the house. But the name issue is something I guess he's just never had challenged so that "This Is The Way Things Are," mindset kicked in. I honestly think it has never occurred to him to even see it as a gender thing. The fact that his sisters/nieces/etc. all changed their names at marriage never seemed odd, and the fact that he, his brothers, his nephews, and his oldest son did not was just normal.

It just gets me wondering about how many little prejudices people might be enforcing (or, well, trying to enforce) without even realizing that they are doing it.
Trust me, the number is huge for almost every individual.

It really makes me wonder how much of gender role enforcement is simply a matter of people having something they never even thought about.
This is true of the vast majority of human opinions.

The vast majority of opinions held by the vast majority of humans are held without any awareness of why those opinions are held. These people simply haven't ever investigated why they think the things they do.

It's appalling.

not necessarily about name changes, but gender role enforcement I guess...

the other day in play group the facilitator was asking all the kids what they wanted to be when they grow up, so my 3yo says "I want to be a Gastroenterologist" to which everyone said 'aww' while her best friend next to her says "I want to be a ballet dancer" and everyone looks at him like he is crazy......what's up with that?! why was everyone so happy that she wants to be a doctor, but unhappy that he wants to dance. I got the feeling that if she had said she wanted to be a ballet dancer and he wanted to be a doctor, both would have gotten the "aww"......then later I get a comment from another mom that they think my kid's friend "might be homosexual" and from another that he "is a wussy" I got so pissed. Why can't a guy like to dance and be heterosexual? and what if he is homosexual? what's their problem? he's 4 freaking years old.... and what's up with calling him a "wussy"?! I hate that word, it's like demeaning to women and stuff.
My high school offered a class called Beauty Culture. The classroom was effectively a hair salon, with sinks and those big hair dryers, plus mirrors everywhere. The class taught hair and makeup.

Now, this class was exceedingly popular among female students because it was easy. Since they already knew a lot about hair and makeup (I started high school in 1989), they did really well. But I wanted to take the class for different reasons. I didn't really know anything about hair and makeup, and I thought it would be fun to learn. Plus, with 40 kids in the class and all but maybe 2 of them girls, it struck me as a fun environment.

Of course, I didn't get to take the class. More people registered for it than there were spaces available, so the school gave preference to female students. They wouldn't even explain why (they looked at me like I should know the answer).

Ah screw it, People should just be named after the town/village/part-of-the-city where-they-were-born or the company they work. Kinda like Jennifer Government. Double-plus-good for linking to our glorious benefactor. Yeah, family names are on the way out because their inherrent bias towards one gender or the other.

Yup, why?

I wouldn't expect GA to be one of the states wale male-female indifference concerning names changes.

Not exactly a bastion of progressive ideas down here.

I wouldn't expect GA to be one of the states wale male-female indifference concerning names changes.

Not exactly a bastion of progressive ideas down here.

I know, I thought it was really odd too. A friend of mine brought up one possible cause, though - old money. Women in "high society" families may very well want to keep their names, and the men may very well want to be seen as part of that family. As much as I'd love to believe that GA has these rules because it is progressive on this issue, I'm much more likely to believe it's due to class issues.

But, one way or the other, the result is good for my fiance and I.

Speaking of the word fiance, I just found out it is spelled differently if your intended is male or female (and my spell checker never recognizes it at all).

Speaking of the word fiance, I just found out it is spelled differently if your intended is male or female (and my spell checker never recognizes it at all).
It's a French word.

You are his fiancée. He is your fiancé.

You've obviously got the cognitive dissonance problem here too. The fact that you restrict the discussion to sons only demonstrates quite clearly that it is a gender issue. Men are supposed to act differently and somehow value their names more than women. How can that be seen as anything but a gender issue?

If this man had never had any sons, and had only had daughters, he wouldn't have thought twice about them all changing their names at marriage.

Meanwhile, we're talking about a huge family here. His surname is not at risk of dying out. His oldest son has already had two sons, both of whom carry the surname. Our children will most likely carry it as well.



The name isn't exactly getting lost. It's still there. In fact, we'll most likely go by it (we're way too lazy to stick to using a hyphenated name in social situations). Our children will carry it. The grandchildren he already has carry it.

And, once again, this is a man who wouldn't have thought twice about a daughter changing her name. Is a son more of an accomplishment than a daughter?



Yup, why?



Thanks. =)

First of all, as a general statement (although I should particularly direct this at Upward Thrust), I am not a sexist, and if you bothered to read the last part of my statement, you would have noted that I did not endorse either his action or the rationale behind it. What I specifically said, however, was that one does not have to have cognitive dissonance to behave the way he does. In point of fact, he can be quite rational and still have those sets of beliefs.

Bottle's statement, even though she should know better by now about tacitly endorsing UT's claim to my sexism, is especially instructive. It was essentially pointing out that there are a great many underlying assumptions society has that often bias towards men. Not only is this true, but informative: one does not have to be sexist yourself to endorse those underlying assumptions. This is especially true if you hold to a somewhat older liberal view of feminism: feminism as political equality. Is this guy endorsing restrictions on your right to vote, Dem? Of course not. Is he relegating you to second-class citizenship? No. Is he paying a dowry? Don't be silly. Why is that significant? Because all of those are political significations of the secondary status of women, and insofar as wouldn't even conceive of endorsing any of them, he in his own mind is not a sexist.

The notion of not taking on a husband's name, however, is just silly in general, and insulting to him. Why? Well, generally because his name emblamizes something significant: he raised a son, and he raised him well enough that a woman would be willing to become part of his family. Taking on your husband's name is not politically damaging to you; it doesn't in any way relegate you to the secondary class of person. I'm willing to bet he sees it as a stretch that it even socially damages you. But for him to lose his father's name does damage him, because it signifies that the father who tried to teach his son how to be a man is nevertheless less significant an influence in his life than a woman he's known for, what, a few years after he became the man he is?

The point here is not that he is right in his assessment (he isn't; if you do take equality seriously, then you have to contenance the fact that women taking their husbands names rather than vice-versa or some other method is unequal social treatment), but the fact that you are so quick to label him as a sexist. He almost certainly is not in his own mind, and I would tend to be very, very wary of applying that label. The fact that you have certain preconceptions based on practices that, while stripped of much of their social significance today were once rooted in patriarchal practices that disenfranchised women, does not in my mind equate to sexism or to cognitive dissonance. It could simply equate to a standard of feminism that you don't adhere to, which is not the same as a ringing endorsement of the patriarchy.

The notion of not taking on a husband's name, however, is just silly in general, and insulting to him.
Really?
So I go to school and I get a PhD before I get married. I publish several papers and make a name for myself in my field. Then I meet a man and marry him. So it's silly of me and insulting to him that I would refuse to take his name after I have already made my own name significant in my field of interest.

Well, generally because his name emblamizes something significant:
My name means something significant.

he raised a son, and he raised him well enough that a woman would be willing to become part of his family.
Yeah, and Dem's parents raised her well enough for a man to want to begin a family with her.

Taking on your husband's name is not politically damaging to you; it doesn't in any way relegate you to the secondary class of person.
Unless you have already become prominant in your profession under your original name, of course. But then women shouldn't be allowed jobs I'm guessing?

But for him to lose his father's name does damage him, because it signifies that the father who tried to teach his son how to be a man is nevertheless less significant an influence in his life than a woman he's known for, what, a few years after he became the man he is?
Wait, but it's alright for a woman to abandon her family, who has raised her for her entire life? A woman is expected to find her husband's family to be more important than her own, but a man isn't?
A woman should forsake her parents for a man she has known, what, a few years?
You haven't established how this makes it any different.

Really?
So I go to school and I get a PhD before I get married. I publish several papers and make a name for myself in my field. Then I meet a man and marry him. So it's silly of me and insulting to him that I would refuse to take his name after I have already made my own name significant in my field of interest.


In this view, yes. This view, however, predates the existence of women getting PhD's, and insofar as it doesn't reflect realistic factors in the marriage relationship today, ought to be amended.


My name means something significant.


Yes, it does.


Yeah, and Dem's parents raised her well enough for a man to want to begin a family with her.


True, but in this view she joins the man's family. It's a signification that the most-important man in her life has changed. The fact that she can and should be measured in ways other than which man in her life is most important is not considered.


Unless you have already become prominant in your profession under your original name, of course. But then women shouldn't be allowed jobs I'm guessing?

And your profession apparently doesn't place a high emphasis on reading comprehension, from your response.

Please pray tell, Dakini, where in my posts can you infer that I think "women shouldn't be allowed jobs"? If you can find one goddamned post in the entire history of my time on this site where I ever seriously entertain such a suggestion, I will happily apologize for the error of my remarks. But if you can't, then you who owe me an apology, and a pretty frapping big one at that. I take my feminism seriously enough that I consider it an insult of the highest order for you to label me as such, and if you can't prove what you assert, then you damned well ought to apologize for being both a hypocrite and a liar; the first for judging on the basis of false assumptions (the quintessential failing of sexism), and the second for shooting off glaringly false assertions about someone else.


Wait, but it's alright for a woman to abandon her family, who has raised her for her entire life? A woman is expected to find her husband's family to be more important than her own, but a man isn't?
A woman should forsake her parents for a man she has known, what, a few years?
You haven't established how this makes it any different.

In this view, yes. But it is also, in this view (WHICH I DO NOT PERSONALLY SUBSCRIBE TOO, for those of you who cannot in spite of plain English discern my view from the view as I am articulating one could make), irrelevant. The standard we are setting up here is one of political damage, and no political damage has occurred. For a woman to be considered part of a new family does not in itself reduce her status of or claim to personhood, any more than the act of penetration by a male during sexual intercourse in itself signifies male dominance over the female (as Dworkin herself noted on the subject, it could have been just as easy for society to construct the act as female dominant, with the male being overcome by the female). Rather, it is the social, and especially political, construction of married woman being property that reduces her claim to and status of person. Insofar as the father does not endorse that social and political construction, he is not being sexist.

First of all, as a general statement (although I should particularly direct this at Upward Thrust), I am not a sexist, and if you bothered to read the last part of my statement, you would have noted that I did not endorse either his action or the rationale behind it.

I didn't call you a sexist or say that you endorsed it. I just pointed out that it is sexist - period. One has to ignore an awful lot to ignore that.

What I did point out was that you had an issue with cognitive dissonance. You basically said, "This isn't a gender issue, it's just that he thinks sons should act differently than daughters." The fact that the difference is between sons and daughters makes it VERY CLEARLY a gender issue.

What I specifically said, however, was that one does not have to have cognitive dissonance to behave the way he does. In point of fact, he can be quite rational and still have those sets of beliefs.

The cognitive dissonance is clear. It doesn't even occur to him that this is unequal treatment of men and women, even though he would not advocate unequal treatment in other instances.

The notion of not taking on a husband's name, however, is just silly in general, and insulting to him. Why?

First of all, hyphenation is taking on a husband's name.

Second of all, this point is irrelevant. He has no issue whatsoever with what I do with my name. It is only my fiance's name that he is concerned with.

Taking on your husband's name is not politically damaging to you; it doesn't in any way relegate you to the secondary class of person.

Taking it on and doing away with my own would be professionally damaging - something he actually does understand. You seem to have missed the part where I made it clear that he doesn't much care what I do with my name.

The point here is not that he is right in his assessment (he isn't; if you do take equality seriously, then you have to contenance the fact that women taking their husbands names rather than vice-versa or some other method is unequal social treatment), but the fact that you are so quick to label him as a sexist.

I didn't label him as a sexist. In fact, I did just the opposite. I made it exceedingly clear that I do not see him as "a sexist." I made it exceedingly clear that, in most instances, he wouldn't dream of espousing sexist viewpoints. That's why this particular instance was so surprisng to me in that a person who is not sexist was suddenly pushing very hard for a sexist standard to be applied.

I also made it clear, from the very start, that I don't think he recognizes it as a sexist standard - and that he's probably never even questioned the idea.

In this view, yes. But it is also, in this view (WHICH I DO NOT PERSONALLY SUBSCRIBE TOO, for those of you who cannot in spite of plain English discern my view from the view as I am articulating one could make), irrelevant.

To be fair, you jumped all over me for arguing with the point you were making - thinking I had assumed that it was your own personal viewpoint, when I had not.

The standard we are setting up here is one of political damage, and no political damage has occurred. For a woman to be considered part of a new family does not in itself reduce her status of or claim to personhood,

Here's the thing though. I absolutely consider myself to be joining his family, just as I consider my fiance to be joining mine. It is in the assumption that I am joining his family, while nothing changes for him, that the inherent sexism of the viewpoint is seen. It is in the assumption that it is somehow a rejection of his family for him to change his name in any way, while it is not a rejection of mine for me to do the same, that the inherent sexism of the viewpoint is seen. One doesn't have to outright say that one gender is better than the other to be espousing a sexist viewpoint.

So, not too long ago, I posted a long thread about names - specifically about name changes at marriage and what my fiance and I might decide to do. In the end, we decided that we would both hyphenate. We'll both have the same surname, we'll both have to go through the hassle, and I shouldn't have any problems professionally. We went and got the license Tuesday. =)

That night was apparently the first time his father heard of our intentions. And he had a COW. At one point, he threatened not to come to the wedding at all. So, here comes the gender role part of the story. He had no problem with me changing my name. In fact, he kept bringing up the fact that his wife had taken her maiden name as her middle name, but that he hadn't taken it, because he "wasn't born with it" and "wasn't a [her maiden name]."

It really got me thinking about gender role enforcement. Much of the time, I think of it as a voluntary thing - that people intentionally seek to enforce gender norms on people. But I really don't think that's the case here. I don't think he even realizes that he is doing it - or that the comments he was making are incredibly misogynistic (after all, she certainly wasn't born a [his surname])

It really makes me wonder how much of gender role enforcement is simply a matter of people having something they never even thought about. This is a guy who would never dream of suggesting that women were in any way "below" men, yet he is adamant that this particular gender role - one that he probably doesn't even realize is a tradition based in a system where marriage was more akin to a man buying a woman from her father than it was to a mutual agreement - should be strictly held to. Why this one and not others? And does he really not realize the implications behind it?

Discuss.

Why are you ashamed to take your man's name? Is he the nephew of Charles Manson or does the family have a certain notoriety to it in your region? I have no prolem with famous people keeping their names because there name is sort of well a brand name. Unless you are a famous author or something I think you should take your husband's name. I can totally identify with your soon to be father in law.

Even if your name is a brand name so to speak, you can still use your maiden name as an alias. If you have a hyphenated name people will think that you are a liberal and it will really turn a lot of people off to you on something as silly as your last name.

Why are you ashamed to take your man's name? Is he the nephew of Charles Manson or does the family have a certain notoriety to it in your region? I have no prolem with famous people keeping their names because there name is sort of well a brand name. Unless you are a famous author or something I think you should take your husband's name. I can totally identify with your soon to be father in law.

Why are you ashamed to take your woman's name?


Even if your name is a brand name so to speak, you can still use your maiden name as an alias. If you have a hyphenated name people will think that you are a liberal and it will really turn a lot of people off to you on something as silly as your last name.
Somebody who is "turned off" on a woman simply because she retains her own name is probably going to be better off not associating with Demi. She might just rock their world. :D

The notion of not taking on a husband's name, however, is just silly in general, and insulting to him. Why? Well, generally because his name emblamizes something significant: he raised a son, and he raised him well enough that a woman would be willing to become part of his family. Taking on your husband's name is not politically damaging to you; it doesn't in any way relegate you to the secondary class of person. I'm willing to bet he sees it as a stretch that it even socially damages you. But for him to lose his father's name does damage him, because it signifies that the father who tried to teach his son how to be a man is nevertheless less significant an influence in his life than a woman he's known for, what, a few years after he became the man he is?

Ummm... Excuse me? My not taking on my husband's asshole father's name insults who, exactly? My FIL was an abusive SOB before he had an anyursim. After, he was eccentric, semi-charming, and still an asshole to his wife and son. So, why the hell should I take his name? Why the hell should I have to give up an old and honorable name to take an asshole's name? Pray, explain this to me, for I am but a stupid woman.

And just FYI, my husband supported my decision. Or, more accurately, when I told him I wanted to keep my name, he shrugged and said it was my decision. And how the hell did he lose his name? He's still a Hall, as little as he likes to claim it.

Ummm... Excuse me? My not taking on my husband's asshole father's name insults who, exactly? My FIL was an abusive SOB before he had an anyursim. After, he was eccentric, semi-charming, and still an asshole to his wife and son. So, why the hell should I take his name? Why the hell should I have to give up an old and honorable name to take an asshole's name? Pray, explain this to me, for I am but a stupid woman.

And just FYI, my husband supported my decision. Or, more accurately, when I told him I wanted to keep my name, he shrugged and said it was my decision. And how the hell did he lose his name? He's still a Hall, as little as he likes to claim it.
But it wouldn't damage you to give up your name, and it will damage your husband's poor, tender ego if you don't! Imagine his anguish as you walk around not bearing HIS name!

And he couldn't possibly give up his name, because that would be a slap in the face of his brave manly father who taught him how to be a man!
(You, a woman, were never taught anything of importance by your parents, and therefore sacrifice nothing by giving up the name that you have carried your entire life.)

A man cannot retain his identity and heritage without his name! He cannot honor and respect his father and family without not only carrying their name, but also imposing it upon others. A woman, meanwhile, doesn't require any of this. For some reason. Probably because women don't raise children and also aren't raised by parents, and therefore don't need any acknowledgment of their part in families.

Why are you ashamed to take your man's name? Is he the nephew of Charles Manson or does the family have a certain notoriety to it in your region? I have no prolem with famous people keeping their names because there name is sort of well a brand name. Unless you are a famous author or something I think you should take your husband's name. I can totally identify with your soon to be father in law.

Even if your name is a brand name so to speak, you can still use your maiden name as an alias. If you have a hyphenated name people will think that you are a liberal and it will really turn a lot of people off to you on something as silly as your last name.

Please, pretty please, tell me you're joking. If not, get the fuck over yourself. If a woman wants to keep her name, who the hell does it hurt? Not you, not her, and sure as fuck not her father in law!

Maybe he just doesn't like your surname :p

I knew someone once, who, despite being a conservative Seventh-Day Adventist, decided to keep her surname when she got married because she didn't want to be called Donna Dickie.
ALso might be insulted that 'you' aren't really taking the hubby's name, and that he is devaluing his with yours.

But it wouldn't damage you to give up your name, and it will damage your husband's poor, tender ego if you don't! Imagine his anguish as you walk around not bearing HIS name!

And he couldn't possibly give up his name, because that would be a slap in the face of his brave manly father who taught him how to be a man!
(You, a woman, were never taught anything of importance by your parents, and therefore sacrifice nothing by giving up the name that you have carried your entire life.)

A man cannot retain his identity and heritage without his name! He cannot honor and respect his father and family without not only carrying their name, but also imposing it upon others. A woman, meanwhile, doesn't require any of this. For some reason. Probably because women don't raise children and also aren't raised by parents, and therefore don't need any acknowledgment of their part in families.
See, Bottle understands.

But it wouldn't damage you to give up your name, and it will damage your husband's poor, tender ego if you don't! Imagine his anguish as you walk around not bearing HIS name!

And he couldn't possibly give up his name, because that would be a slap in the face of his brave manly father who taught him how to be a man!
(You, a woman, were never taught anything of importance by your parents, and therefore sacrifice nothing by giving up the name that you have carried your entire life.)

A man cannot retain his identity and heritage without his name! He cannot honor and respect his father and family without not only carrying their name, but also imposing it upon others. A woman, meanwhile, doesn't require any of this. For some reason. Probably because women don't raise children and also aren't raised by parents, and therefore don't need any acknowledgment of their part in families.

LOL. I do so love feminist sarcasm. Totally pwns any other kind.

Why are you ashamed to take your man's name?

I'm not. In fact, I am taking his name - just without giving up my own. That's what hyphenation does. Doing so would result in many professional issues for me.

I have no prolem with famous people keeping their names because there name is sort of well a brand name. Unless you are a famous author or something I think you should take your husband's name.

I have published in scientific journals. Does that count?

I can totally identify with your soon to be father in law.

Apparently not, since you haven't said anything at all about his actual objection. He doesn't care what I do with my name. He cares what my fiance does with his name. It is the fact that my fiance has also decided to hyphenate that caused the problem.

Even if your name is a brand name so to speak, you can still use your maiden name as an alias.

I don't much like the idea of having two names and having to use one in one context and another in others. This is especially true because many of my professional acquaintances are also social acquaintance, so the whole "different names professionally and socially" thing wouldn't work for me.

If you have a hyphenated name people will think that you are a liberal and it will really turn a lot of people off to you on something as silly as your last name.

If someone doesn't want to talk to me because I have a hypthenated last name, then I probably don't want to talk to them anyways.


Somebody who is "turned off" on a woman simply because she retains her own name is probably going to be better off not associating with Demi. She might just rock their world.

teehee

I have published in scientific journals. Does that count?
It was a silly example anyway. Authors can put whatever name they'd like on their books. A friend of mine writes romance novels under the name Diana Whitney, but that's not her real name.

There's no reason why you should ever change your name unless you want to. MY wife and I have kept our own names, and that's not likely to change.

If we have kids, there's no reason why their names need to match our names.

It was a silly example anyway. Authors can put whatever name they'd like on their books. A friend of mine writes romance novels under the name Diana Whitney, but that's not her real name.

Indeed. Pseudonyms are a bit less common in my profession, however.

There's no reason why you should ever change your name unless you want to.

I agree.

If we have kids, there's no reason why their names need to match our names.
I hear a lot of people insisting that kids' names need to match their parents' names, but I don't really see why.

My name does not match my mother's or my father's name. It's never been a problem. My parents have never had legal problems because of this. There's never been any question of who my legal guardians are, or who my mother and father are. The worst thing we've had to endure was when Dad went to parent-teacher conferences the first time, and the teacher said, "Welcome, Mr...?" and waited for him to supply the correct last name. Oh the pain of it all.

Considering the number of blended families these days, it's actually quite common for kids to have surnames that don't match at least one of their parents'.

You have? Cool. What's your field of expertise?

I'm currently working towards a PhD in bioengineering. I've worked in cardiovascular and stem cell research. I don't yet have a first-author paper out, but we're working on what should be my first one.

I have published in scientific journals. Does that count?

You have? Cool. What's your field of expertise?

I'm currently working towards a PhD in bioengineering. I've worked in cardiovascular and stem cell research. I don't yet have a first-author paper out, but we're working on what should be my first one.

Very nice! The way things are going with my UG research I may get my name on a paper by the end of the summer.

My wife took my last name and our children will have my last name as their last name. And they will have my wife's maiden name as their middle name.

So for example if we have a son first and choose to name him John his full name will be John Simpson Kennedy.

Very nice! The way things are going with my UG research I may get my name on a paper by the end of the summer.

It's always nice to get an early start. =)

My undergrad research has finally been submitted (my mentor was a little slow on getting it out the door).

Please, pretty please, tell me you're joking. If not, get the fuck over yourself. If a woman wants to keep her name, who the hell does it hurt? Not you, not her, and sure as fuck not her father in law!

Whether we are annoyed by a tradition or not we should respect tradition. However, if there is a really awful tradition it should be changed. This is at most an annoying (to some) tradition.

It was a silly example anyway. Authors can put whatever name they'd like on their books. A friend of mine writes romance novels under the name Diana Whitney, but that's not her real name.

There's no reason why you should ever change your name unless you want to. MY wife and I have kept our own names, and that's not likely to change.

If we have kids, there's no reason why their names need to match our names.

If a child does not have the father's name it looks like the child is a bastard. You do not want the kiddies going through life looked down on for being a bastard when they are not even bastards do you?

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.

I know of a couple that did just that. They took the surname 'Blue'. The mother of the bride freaked out, because their child was going to be known as 'Baby Blue' (in the stage before he was given a name). Oh no. How horrible.

To me, the surname thing is as stupid as believing a line will 'die out' if there is no male issue to continue it. Again. Oh no. How horrible.

Whether we are annoyed by a tradition or not we should respect tradition. However, if there is a really awful tradition it should be changed. This is at most an annoying (to some) tradition.

Except tradition isn't law. There is no law in this country (the US) that says a woman has to change her name when she marries. Therefore, I am bloody well free to use whatever the hell name I want, tradition or no. And since redwulf doesn't give a damn (checked again this morning), I'm keeping the name I was born with. And since it doesn't hurt you, why the hell do you care?

Whether we are annoyed by a tradition or not we should respect tradition.

Why? What do we gain by doing so? Why is tradition for the sake of tradition something to be respected? To me, it just sounds like laziness - people who don't want to think for themselves.

If a child does not have the father's name it looks like the child is a bastard. You do not want the kiddies going through life looked down on for being a bastard when they are not even bastards do you?

Why should a child be "looked down on" for "being a bastard" anyways? It isn't like the child had any control over the marital status of his parents, now is it?

My mother took my father's last name. My wife took my last name.
Its family tradition we're all happy with.

I dont tell other people what to do,nor do I give a flying fuck what they do.

My kids are bastards. I'm sure they'll be fine. But I suspect he doesn't mean 'bastard' he means 'fatherless'. Not quite the same thing.

would males be bastards and females be bastardesses or bastardettes?

Whether we are annoyed by a tradition or not we should respect tradition. However, if there is a really awful tradition it should be changed. This is at most an annoying (to some) tradition.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll post it here again. I was shocked to find out that various macho cultures of Latin America do NOT have a tradition of the woman taking her husband's name. She keeps her own. Not only that, but the mother's maiden name is part of the surname of all her children.

So which traditions are we discussing?

My people are matrilineal. Makes sense that our children should have their mother's surnames...which if following tradition would be OUR mother's surnames and so on...

I've mentioned this before, but I'll post it here again. I was shocked to find out that various macho cultures of Latin America do NOT have a tradition of the woman taking her husband's name. She keeps her own. Not only that, but the mother's maiden name is part of the surname of all her children.

So which traditions are we discussing?

My people are matrilineal. Makes sense that our children should have their mother's surnames...which if following tradition would be OUR mother's surnames and so on...


We should follow our own traditions. Most traditions are not inherently better or worse than others. I think that we need to preserve our culture by preserving traditions as much as possible. Now there are some downright wrong traditions (mostly from India) that must be extinguished. Most however are mostly harmless. We should all try to do our best to maintain our traditions.

Why should a child be "looked down on" for "being a bastard" anyways? It isn't like the child had any control over the marital status of his parents, now is it?My kids are bastards. I'm sure they'll be fine. But I suspect he doesn't mean 'bastard' he means 'fatherless'. Not quite the same thing.

My kids are bastards. I'm sure they'll be fine. But I suspect he doesn't mean 'bastard' he means 'fatherless'. Not quite the same thing.

I mean children of parents that did not bother to have the child within wedlock. I am not referring to adopted children and I imagine that someone decent enough to be playing NS would be doing something nice like adopting rather than something nasty like breeding outside of marriage.

We should follow our own traditions. Most traditions are not inherently better or worse than others. I think that we need to preserve our culture by preserving traditions as much as possible. Now there are some downright wrong traditions (mostly from India) that must be extinguished. Most however are mostly harmless. We should all try to do our best to maintain our traditions.

Why? If a tradition is only a tradition, with no practical use, and can be inconvenient on top of it, why on earth should we seek to maintain it?

We should follow our own traditions. Most traditions are not inherently better or worse than others. I think that we need to preserve our culture by preserving traditions as much as possible. Now there are some downright wrong traditions (mostly from India) that must be extinguished. Most however are mostly harmless. We should all try to do our best to maintain our traditions.

So we're making our own traditions. Hell, we had just about the most untraditional ceremony possible - we didn't invite anyone. It was performed by a woman! It was pagan! We had it in the priestess' back yard! When she asked what kind of ceremony we wanted, we replied 'medium church' and she understood! When my maid of honor asked me what I wanted her to wear, I replied, after long consideration, "Clothes." Loren, the priestess, got the same. We didn't vow to keep ourselves only unto each other! The vows were something like, 'keep the others honor, safety, comfort and joy above our own.' I wrote it, and gave the only copy to Loren. She has since moved.

Since we bucked as much tradition as possible with our wedding, why not with my name as well?

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.

I actually worked with a guy who did exactly that. Someone asked him the origins of his name and he said, "Just made it up a few years ago. It has not ethnic origins." I don't think it's a weird idea. I've discussed doing exactly that with several serious girlfriends. I would never give my name to a wife.

We should follow our own traditions. Most traditions are not inherently better or worse than others. I think that we need to preserve our culture by preserving traditions as much as possible. Now there are some downright wrong traditions (mostly from India) that must be extinguished. Most however are mostly harmless. We should all try to do our best to maintain our traditions.

Ah, so you probably wouldn't encourage people to mix traditions, or marry outside their tradition, because of the confusion this would cause.

But...'downright wrong traditions (mostly from India)'? My goodness, you've got tunnel vision...

would males be bastards and females be bastardesses or bastardettes?

Well, if we're subscribing to the concept of bastardhood, I suppose we're probably not gender neutral, so I'd say, take your pic:) I kind of like the latter. Sounds like a punk rock band.

I mean children of parents that did not bother to have the child within wedlock. I am not referring to adopted children and I imagine that someone decent enough to be playing NS would be doing something nice like adopting rather than something nasty like breeding outside of marriage.

I bred out outside of marriage twice. How nasty of me.

Nor do I ever plan on marrying their father. Nonetheless, we live together and have for 10 years. We clearly are cut of inferior moral fabric compared to those who breed within marriage. Our poor children.

I mean children of parents that did not bother to have the child within wedlock. I am not referring to adopted children and I imagine that someone decent enough to be playing NS would be doing something nice like adopting rather than something nasty like breeding outside of marriage.

Please, please tell me you're just taking a piss here. My sister and her boyfriend have been together since childhood, never even imagined being with other partners and have two children together. Despite you absurd claims, it makes not one bit of difference to them, their children, my family or God.

I mean children of parents that did not bother to have the child within wedlock. I am not referring to adopted children and I imagine that someone decent enough to be playing NS would be doing something nice like adopting rather than something nasty like breeding outside of marriage.

So you're saying my best friend is somehow less than me because she had the bad taste to be born on the wrong side of the sheets and I wasn't? I'll admit, she can be hard to get along with, but less than me? Lord and Lady, she had no control over her parents marital state!

So we're making our own traditions. Hell, we had just about the most untraditional ceremony possible - we didn't invite anyone. It was performed by a woman! It was pagan! We had it in the priestess' back yard! When she asked what kind of ceremony we wanted, we replied 'medium church' and she understood! When my maid of honor asked me what I wanted her to wear, I replied, after long consideration, "Clothes." Loren, the priestess, got the same. We didn't vow to keep ourselves only unto each other! The vows were something like, 'keep the others honor, safety, comfort and joy above our own.' I wrote it, and gave the only copy to Loren. She has since moved.

Since we bucked as much tradition as possible with our wedding, why not with my name as well?

There is not much that I can say to that. We need a few couples like you just to give our society some interesting "flavor." You go right on ahead full steam! This wedding sounds like something tangential to some Frank Zappa song.

So you're saying my best friend is somehow less than me because she had the bad taste to be born on the wrong side of the sheets and I wasn't? I'll admit, she can be hard to get along with, but less than me? Lord and Lady, she had no control over her parents marital state!

Yes.

Please, please tell me you're just taking a piss here. Well, as fun as it is to take him seriously, he's been a pretty obvious troll from post 1.

Please, please tell me you're just taking a piss here. My sister and her boyfriend have been together since childhood, never even imagined being with other partners and have two children together. Despite you absurd claims, it makes not one bit of difference to them, their children, my family or God.

So why didnt they get married? What is so bad about being married?

And the fun ends. Good trolls are either funny or allow us to suspend disbelief. You've accomplished neither. Sad, really.

I know, that drives me nuts. It's always the heavy-handedness that ends a promising career.

So why didnt they get married? What is so bad about being married?
Actually, what's so good about being married?

I wonder if any couple has ever just invented a completely new surname and both took it when they married. That would be a bit different.
Sometimes those work out great.

So you're saying my best friend is somehow less than me because she had the bad taste to be born on the wrong side of the sheets and I wasn't? I'll admit, she can be hard to get along with, but less than me? Lord and Lady, she had no control over her parents marital state!

I look down on bastards to punish the parents through the oppression of the child, I guess it isnt that the kid is bad it is just that the parents were and the only way to punish them is through the child. If we did not coddle the bastards by feeding them and telling them they are ok, people would make less of them.

Yes.

And the fun ends. Good trolls are either funny or allow us to suspend disbelief. You've accomplished neither. Sad, really.

So why didnt they get married? What is so bad about being married?

Because in the eyes of God they are married and who else need they impress? What's so good about having a civil ceremony?

There is not much that I can say to that. We need a few couples like you just to give our society some interesting "flavor." You go right on ahead full steam! This wedding sounds like something tangential to some Frank Zappa song.

I'm not sure I like a stranger comparing the most joyful day of my life to a Zappa song.

I'm not sure I like a stranger comparing the most joyful day of my life to a Zappa song.

I am not trying to be mean. It is just that when you talk about pagan priestesses and such it sort of reminds me of some sort of a "Magic Momma". I really did not mean to offend.

I'm not sure I like a stranger comparing the most joyful day of my life to a Zappa song.

Oh come on now...Zappa is pure gold (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpsRRJ2308o).

I'm not sure I like a stranger comparing the most joyful day of my life to a Zappa song.

I think intentionally bucking tradition is akin to following it really. I think what's best is to do what you'd like to do whether it adheres to tradition or doesn't.

Actually, what's so good about being married?

You have a live-in prostitute?

I look down on bastards to punish the parents through the oppression of the child, See, now this is just so ineffective. It's too ridiculous. It's just not believable.



I guess it isnt that the kid is bad it is just that the parents were and the only way to punish them is through the child. If we did not coddle the bastards by feeding them and telling them they are ok, people would make less of them.
You stink at this.

I know, that drives me nuts. It's always the heavy-handedness that ends a promising career.

Yours was a masterpiece for most of it. Ah, but that is so unfortunately rare.

It sounds like Chris is not a bastard. I may be missing your point.

You can go fuck yourself. Totally not worth letting him bait you into flaming him. He's a fake.

Yes.

You can go fuck yourself. That's all I have to say. I love Chris, I love my godson (born in marriage, thankyouverymuch) and neither of them are less than me or my husband. Or you, or anyone else. My godson is autistic. His father has decided he can't deal with a 'retarded' son. Chris is on her own, fighting to see that her son gets a decent education, fighting to keep her job when the school calls at least once a week because Nate acted up and needs to be sent home. So if you think you're better than she because your parents were married when you were born, you can take a long walk off a short pier.

So we're making our own traditions. Hell, we had just about the most untraditional ceremony possible - we didn't invite anyone. It was performed by a woman! It was pagan! We had it in the priestess' back yard! When she asked what kind of ceremony we wanted, we replied 'medium church' and she understood! When my maid of honor asked me what I wanted her to wear, I replied, after long consideration, "Clothes." Loren, the priestess, got the same. We didn't vow to keep ourselves only unto each other! The vows were something like, 'keep the others honor, safety, comfort and joy above our own.' I wrote it, and gave the only copy to Loren. She has since moved.

Since we bucked as much tradition as possible with our wedding, why not with my name as well?

=)

Our wedding is a mix of "traditional" (in quotes because the meaning of that differs depending on who and where you are) and non-traditional. We pretty much stuck with the traditions we liked (or that family simply couldn't do without and we didn't mind) and ditched the rest. We will also be married by a woman - a female Methodist reverend with big hair - one of my all-time favorite members of the clergy.

And, although it will throw some of those attending into complete culture shock (considering that the female reverend might do that all on her own), we invited all of our good friends, regardless of their own cultural background. This means that all of the rather sheltered Christians from rural GA are suddenly going to be introduced to gay couples, Muslim couples (including one woman who chooses to wear hijab), Hindu couples, interracial couples, a Sikh couple (who they will probably assume is Muslim), Jews, agnostics, atheists, a struggling actress, etc., etc., etc. It'll probably be the talk of the family for quite some time. =)

I am not trying to be mean. It is just that when you talk about pagan priestesses and such it sort of reminds me of some sort of a "Magic Momma". I really did not mean to offend.

I'm glad. Would it help if I told you that we're both pagan? That we didn't just choose a pagan ceremony on a lark, that it's our actual religion?

I think parents should only become parents if they are married. I think that unhealthy fetuses should be aborted. I think that welfare should not be spent on children who were brought into the world in a wrong manner as this does nothing to limit the wrong manner of bringing babies into the world. All I am looking for is a little responsibility and accountability so that maybe the problems of handicapped and illegitimate children can be reduced. Call me a troll if you will, but I am sickened by teenage girls having babies. It makes me furious and I want to see it reduced.

Kbrook, I do not need an apology. I am a big boy.

*snip*

Aw, Kbrook, you should not allow trolls to get you so riled. Now, you're both cruising for trouble with the mods. Is he worth it? Editing won't keep you from going afoul of the mods, but I would do so anyway and apologize, since it seems to mitigate the punishment at times. Remember that he's trying to upset you and that you've just played into his hands.

I look down on bastards to punish the parents through the oppression of the child, I guess it isnt that the kid is bad it is just that the parents were and the only way to punish them is through the child. If we did not coddle the bastards by feeding them and telling them they are ok, people would make less of them.

*reported*

Aw, Kbrook, you should not allow trolls to get you so riled. Now, you're both cruising for trouble with the mods. Is he worth it? Editing won't keep you from going afoul of the mods, but I would do so anyway and apologize, since it seems to mitigate the punishment at times. Remember that he's trying to upset you and that you've just played into his hands.

You're right. You're right. But If I'm gonna get reported, I'm not going to change what I said. If I get punished, so be it.

I think parents should only become parents if they are married. I think that unhealthy fetuses should be aborted. I think that welfare should not be spent on children who were brought into the world in a wrong manner as this does nothing to limit the wrong manner of bringing babies into the world. All I am looking for is a little responsibility and accountability so that maybe the problems of handicapped and illegitimate children can be reduced. Call me a troll if you will, but I am sickened by teenage girls having babies. It makes me furious and I want to see it reduced.

You realize if not for teenaged girls having babies, you'd not be here, no?

I think parents should only become parents if they are married. I think that unhealthy fetuses should be aborted. I think that welfare should not be spent on children who were brought into the world in a wrong manner as this does nothing to limit the wrong manner of bringing babies into the world. All I am looking for is a little responsibility and accountability so that maybe the problems of handicapped and illegitimate children can be reduced. Call me a troll if you will, but I am sickened by teenage girls having babies. It makes me furious and I want to see it reduced.

Dude, you just did the freaking Tarantella on one of my hot buttons. I shouldn't have snapped, and I do apologize for that. I won't apologize for thinking your opinions are wrong, tho.

I bred out outside of marriage twice. How nasty of me.

Nor do I ever plan on marrying their father. Nonetheless, we live together and have for 10 years. We clearly are cut of inferior moral fabric compared to those who breed within marriage. Our poor children.

You "bred"....*L*

Where you in "heat" ?


I myself,married the bitch before I sired her litter.

You "bred"....*L*

Where you in "heat" ?


I myself,married the bitch before I sired her litter.

Hahahaha, well, I'm just using the terms he tossed out there.

And when have you ever known me to NOT be in heat?

Did your bitch suckle her offspring at her teats?:p

If marriage was important to me, I'd have demanded it. Ditto for him.

I think parents should only become parents if they are married. I think that unhealthy fetuses should be aborted. I think that welfare should not be spent on children who were brought into the world in a wrong manner as this does nothing to limit the wrong manner of bringing babies into the world. All I am looking for is a little responsibility and accountability so that maybe the problems of handicapped and illegitimate children can be reduced. Call me a troll if you will, but I am sickened by teenage girls having babies. It makes me furious and I want to see it reduced.

not for nothin', but I've seen women in their 20s and 30s that have shown nothing but poor judgement and made all the wrong choices.

Age has little to do with it.

Hahahaha, well, I'm just using the terms he tossed out there.

And when have you ever known me to NOT be in heat?

Did your bitch suckle her offspring at her teats?:p

If marriage was important to me, I'd have demanded it. Ditto for him.

I read and re-read and laughed both times.

Yeah- they got their turn when mine was over.

Marriage was important to my wife and I. But-we were together for a long time before the ceremony. We already had a bond that I considered as strong as any ceremony.

I read and re-read and laughed both times.

Yeah- they got their turn when mine was over.

Marriage was important to my wife and I. But-we were together for a long time before the ceremony. We already had a bond that I considered as strong as any ceremony.

We felt the same way, but that didn't stop our headlong rush down the aisle. We started dating in June 2000. We were married in May 2001. Do the math... :)

I read and re-read and laughed both times. Glad to be of service *takes a bow*...please, tip your waitress.

Yeah- they got their turn when mine was over. Isn't it nice to get them back?

Marriage was important to my wife and I. But-we were together for a long time before the ceremony. We already had a bond that I considered as strong as any ceremony.
And I really have no problem with that. It's about the desires of the people involved, not about what other people think they should do.

You realize if not for teenaged girls having babies, you'd not be here, no?

As part of my history thesis I listened to tape recordings of immigrants to a major US city who immigrated here in the early part of the century. Surprisingly, it was considered unusual for a woman to be married as early as 18. The woman who was on the tape was married at 18 and she said that the reason why she got married was because she was always so poor that she had to sleep on the floor but if she got married she got to sleep on a bed. There is so much that we take for granted here. Anyway, the point is that even in 1900 or so, it was considered wierd for people to start having families in their teens. That surprised me. Maybe it surprises some of you to. I do not know if I have any unwed teen moms in my geneology. It still does not make it right. It is espescially wrong now though with all the advances in contraception, abortion, and the availability of adoption.

not for nothin', but I've seen women in their 20s and 30s that have shown nothing but poor judgement and made all the wrong choices.

Age has little to do with it.

By the age of 30 - 35, parents are at least better financially and the brain stops develloping at age 35 so they are going to be more mature. That is unless they are screwed up druggies or something of that sort in which case they have no business breeding.

*reported*

You are such a cute little tattler now arent you? Report this if you want:

You are a silly head for thinking that my post was obscene or inflammatory.

The ideal age for a woman to have children is a hell of a lot younger than we tend to be doing it these days.

I've worked with a lot of teen moms, and they have amazingly healthy children, and fairly easy labour compared to women even in their early twenties.

As part of my history thesis I listened to tape recordings of immigrants to a major US city who immigrated here in the early part of the century. Surprisingly, it was considered unusual for a woman to be married as early as 18. The woman who was on the tape was married at 18 and she said that the reason why she got married was because she was always so poor that she had to sleep on the floor but if she got married she got to sleep on a bed. There is so much that we take for granted here. Anyway, the point is that even in 1900 or so, it was considered wierd for people to start having families in their teens. That surprised me. Maybe it surprises some of you to. I do not know if I have any unwed teen moms in my geneology. It still does not make it right. It is espescially wrong now though with all the advances in contraception, abortion, and the availability of adoption.

I take it that was the beginning of history. Otherwise, it really doesn't address what I said. You do realize I can virtually guarantee that at some point in your ancestry there was a teenaged birth. Of course, 1000's of years ago most cultures considered adulthood to occur in the early teens.

You are such a cute little tattler now arent you? Report this if you want:

You are a silly head for thinking that my post was obscene or inflammatory.

I'm glad I could oblige. Baiting is not going to help your case. As to whether it's trolling, that's what mods are for, no?

I take it that was the beginning of history. Otherwise, it really doesn't address what I said. You do realize I can virtually guarantee that at some point in your ancestry there was a teenaged birth. Of course, 1000's of years ago most cultures considered adulthood to occur in the early teens.

Yes. However, I think that across space and time it may have been ok to have babies as teenagers. I do not think that it was ever ok to do so outside of marriage.

By the age of 30 - 35, parents are at least better financially and the brain stops develloping at age 35 so they are going to be more mature. That is unless they are screwed up druggies or something of that sort in which case they have no business breeding.

Do you have support for your assertion that children are better off with older parents? I mean, we all know you're trolling, but let's pretend you're actually attempting reasoned debating, with, oh, I don't know, a little support. How's that sound?

Do you have support for your assertion that children are better off with older parents? I mean, we all know you're trolling, but let's pretend you're actually attempting reasoned debating, with, oh, I don't know, a little support. How's that sound?

I am not trolling. I do know that until we are about 35 our brains have not fully matured. I learned this in a seminar.

I also know that it makes a lot of sense to wait until you are financially better off before you have kids because kids cost a bunch of money if you are going to take care of them properly. As we get older we tend to get wealthier. I am not going to cite an authority off the top of my head because I cannot. However, I will tell you that I read an interesting explanantion about wealth distribution in America which explained that we build wealth exponentially over time and that 20 - 30 year olds own like 2% of the wealth in America and 50 - 60 year olds own most of it. This supports this point.

I think that if parents love each other enough to decide to have a child together, and decide to stick it out to give the kids a good stable homelife, that this helps them. I know of no studies or anything like that on this point but I believe it to be true.

I think that only planned pregnancies should result in someone becoming a parent otherwise the mom should abort or the couple should adopt out. I think that this is in the best interest of the children and the environment in an age of pollution and overpopulation.

Maybe you think I am a troll. I guess I do not care. I can say that I am not, but you wtill will not believe me so what is the point?

Yes. However, I think that across space and time it may have been ok to have babies as teenagers. I do not think that it was ever ok to do so outside of marriage.

That's assuming marriage has been around since the dawn of time, which is almost certainly wrong.

The ideal age for a woman to have children is a hell of a lot younger than we tend to be doing it these days.

I've worked with a lot of teen moms, and they have amazingly healthy children, and fairly easy labour compared to women even in their early twenties.
Well, that just means that the ideal age for physical child birth is younger. But that says nothing about the ideal age for women to actually have children.

I mean, psychologically speaking, how much worse do you suppose it would be for a typical 14 year old to have a baby, compared to if she were 25? And in terms of actually HAVING the baby, I'd venture a wild guess that perhaps women in their early twenties will tend to be more ready and able to care for children.

It may be physical easier for a young person's body to go through childbirth and recover afterwards. The immediate physical health of the baby might be improved. But if you look at offspring and maternal success later on down the line, you start seeing a much sadder picture. :(

The thing is, it has never actually fixed anything to go around slut-bashing teen moms. It doesn't stop them from having babies. It doesn't make those babies any healthier. It doesn't actually do anything besides make a few self-righteous busy-bodies feel superior.

Suppose the following:

Your partner has a rare surname, which is illegal to assume without being related to said surname.

You have a common surname.

Do you take the rare surname?

If the man has the rare surname and the woman has the common surname, is it still gender role enforcement if I were to argue based on the rarity of the surname, as opposed to the gender of the person assuming the name?

Well, that just means that the ideal age for physical child birth is younger. But that says nothing about the ideal age for women to actually have children.

I mean, psychologically speaking, how much worse do you suppose it would be for a typical 14 year old to have a baby, compared to if she were 25? And in terms of actually HAVING the baby, I'd venture a wild guess that perhaps women in their early twenties will tend to be more ready and able to care for children.

It may be physical easier for a young person's body to go through childbirth and recover afterwards. The immediate physical health of the baby might be improved. But if you look at offspring and maternal success later on down the line, you start seeing a much sadder picture. :(

The thing is, it has never actually fixed anything to go around slut-bashing teen moms. It doesn't stop them from having babies. It doesn't make those babies any healthier. It doesn't actually do anything besides make a few self-righteous busy-bodies feel superior.

Grandparents are the key-word here ;) If they are the good kind, they have the experience and should be more than willing to help raise kids, as well as the time.

But that entirely depends on whether they like kids :p But that's what purpose elderly people served in the past and I don't see why we don't go back to it in some instances.

Well, that just means that the ideal age for physical child birth is younger. But that says nothing about the ideal age for women to actually have children. Easy solution. Teen mothers provide gay couples with healthy offspring. :p

Yes. However, I think that across space and time it may have been ok to have babies as teenagers. I do not think that it was ever ok to do so outside of marriage.

According to whom?

I am not trolling. I do know that until we are about 35 our brains have not fully matured. I learned this in a seminar.

How convenient. So far no proof.


I also know that it makes a lot of sense to wait until you are financially better off before you have kids because kids cost a bunch of money if you are going to take care of them properly. As we get older we tend to get wealthier. I am not going to cite an authority off the top of my head because I cannot. However, I will tell you that I read an interesting explanantion about wealth distribution in America which explained that we build wealth exponentially over time and that 20 - 30 year olds own like 2% of the wealth in America and 50 - 60 year olds own most of it. This supports this point.

So by that argument I suppose we should be trying to stop births until one is 50-60. Or do you maybe accept that there are more important things to a healthy upbringing than wealth?

Look more of "look at my assertions with no proof".


I think that if parents love each other enough to decide to have a child together, and decide to stick it out to give the kids a good stable homelife, that this helps them. I know of no studies or anything like that on this point but I believe it to be true.

And more of "no proof."


I think that only planned pregnancies should result in someone becoming a parent otherwise the mom should abort or the couple should adopt out. I think that this is in the best interest of the children and the environment in an age of pollution and overpopulation.

Amusing. Again, you realize it can virtually assured that at some point one of your ancestors was unplanned, if not you.


Maybe you think I am a troll. I guess I do not care. I can say that I am not, but you wtill will not believe me so what is the point?

Uh-huh. It's a commonly held belief that we should not feed "bastards" in order to punish the parents.

Suppose the following:

Your partner has a rare surname, which is illegal to assume without being related to said surname.

You have a common surname.

Do you take the rare surname?

I don't think I'd want to take on a name just because it was rare. But, if someone did prefer a rare surname, I suppose that would be the way to go.

I'm not certain why it would ever be illegal to take it on otherwise, however.

If the man has the rare surname and the woman has the common surname, is it still gender role enforcement if I were to argue based on the rarity of the surname, as opposed to the gender of the person assuming the name?

It is gender role enforcement only if a gender role is involved. You really don't even need the rarity issue. A woman might like her fiance's surname better, and thus decide to take it. The point is that she should never be told that she *has* to because she is a woman. Likewise, a man should not be told that he cannot change his name because he is a man.

Personally, I think it's an issue that every couple should work out on their own - to do what they want to do and what is most convenient for them.

Easy solution. Teen mothers provide gay couples with healthy offspring.

Reminds me of a quote I saw recently: "gay marriages ⇒ god's gift to the asian babies of the world"

I'm not certain why it would ever be illegal to take it on otherwise, however.

I am very hesitant to give you my family name though, because it's rare enough that the name alone lets you track down not just me, but everyone related to me that has ever been on the net :p

Suffice it to say: I have a rare surname that is illegal to assume, unless you are somehow related. It is illegal to assume, because so few people have it, so having it almost certainly makes you related to me :p

It is gender role enforcement only if a gender role is involved. You really don't even need the rarity issue. A woman might like her fiance's surname better, and thus decide to take it. The point is that she should never be told that she *has* to because she is a woman. Likewise, a man should not be told that he cannot change his name because he is a man.

Agreed.

Personally, I think it's an issue that every couple should work out on their own - to do what they want to do and what is most convenient for them.

And Agreed.

I am very hesitant to give you my family name though, because it's rare enough that the name alone lets you track down not just me, but everyone related to me that has ever been on the net :p

Suffice it to say: I have a rare surname that is illegal to assume, unless you are somehow related. It is illegal to assume, because so few people have it, so having it almost certainly makes you related to me :p

What, is your last name Christ? :confused:

What, is your last name Christ? :confused:

No :p

I wish I could tell you, but I am serious when I say that my family name is enough to track not just me down, but my entire family :p

No :p

I wish I could tell you, but I am serious when I say that my family name is enough to track not just me down, but my entire family :p

It's all good. It's not like anyone else is providing theirs...well, some are, but they're weird.

Mine's a ridiculously common last name for the region of India I come from. Perhaps the 2nd or 3rd most common last name from that region.

It's all good. It's not like anyone else is providing theirs...well, some are, but they're weird.

Mine's a ridiculously common last name for the region of India I come from. Perhaps the 2nd or 3rd most common last name from that region.

Mine is German or Dutch in origin (there have been hefty debates about this, as we have about four different stories). It's changed a tiny bit in my line, with the v changed to an f. It came to Denmark some two or three hundred years ago.

However, there are a few alternate spellings that differ slightly. I remember a story about two of my family members meeting in Finland, though they had never known each other :D Ahh, the wonders of a rare surname - people you don't even know are all of a sudden very directly related to you :D

Mine is German or Dutch in origin (there have been hefty debates about this, as we have about four different stories). It's changed a tiny bit in my line, with the v changed to an f. It came to Denmark some two or three hundred years ago.

However, there are a few alternate spellings that differ slightly. I remember a story about two of my family members meeting in Finland, though they had never known each other :D Ahh, the wonders of a rare surname - people you don't even know are all of a sudden very directly related to you :D

Were I to move to Gujarat, I'd probably meet distant relatives I never knew walking down the street. Not that I'd ever found out just how distant, but it's a ridiculously common name.

Were I to move to Gujarat, I'd probably meet distant relatives I never knew walking down the street. Not that I'd ever found out just how distant, but it's a ridiculously common name.

We are all related somehow :p

Good thing with a rare family name is that there is almost always a story behind how we came to be here and not somewhere else.

And it's so much easier to do accurate research, although research itself can be pretty tough to start on.

We are all related somehow :p

Good thing with a rare family name is that there is almost always a story behind how we came to be here and not somewhere else.

And it's so much easier to do accurate research, although research itself can be pretty tough to start on.

My dad once started work on a Genealogy chart for us, starting with us and working back and outward.

In just the first 3 (my, his and my mom's, and my grandparents') generations we have about 400 people, and this is with minimal research.

It's pretty crazy. Especially since every now and then a nationwide convention of our subcaste is organized, and I get to meet a lot of those people.

My dad once started work on a Genealogy chart for us, starting with us and working back and outward.

In just the first 3 (my, his and my mom's, and my grandparents') generations we have about 400 people, and this is with minimal research.

It's pretty crazy. Especially since every now and then a nationwide convention of our subcaste is organized, and I get to meet a lot of those people.

We got about a hundred together for my extended family. Mind you, not everyone showed up and not everyone had kept the rare surname.

Oh man, I'd have a ball with that shit. Somebody tries to tell ME what women should be doing and what they shouldn't be doing gets a kick in the balls. I applaud you on your decision to change both your names equally. <3

True, but in this view she joins the man's family. It's a signification that the most-important man in her life has changed. The fact that she can and should be measured in ways other than which man in her life is most important is not considered.
No, she is not joining his family. They are creating a new family together.
We are not talking about the wife leaving her parents' house to move in with her husband's family, we are talking about two individuals who are creating a new family which is a joining of both their families in a way.

You are such a cute little tattler now arent you? Report this if you want:

You are a silly head for thinking that my post was obscene or inflammatory.

Your post favored torturing young children beacuse their parents don't conform to YOUR world view.

Not only your post WAS inflammatory, it also gives me the right to hope someday your wishes on other people happen to you.

If the man has the rare surname and the woman has the common surname, is it still gender role enforcement if I were to argue based on the rarity of the surname, as opposed to the gender of the person assuming the name?
Of course not.

It's gender role enforcement if your reason for imposing the change is the gender of the individual. But there are plenty of non-gendered reasons why a woman might change her name.

I went to school with some kids whose last name was "Buttwin." Yeah. The son kept bitching about how his sisters could get married and change their names for free, but he was going to have to pay to get a legal change.

Of course not.

It's gender role enforcement if your reason for imposing the change is the gender of the individual. But there are plenty of non-gendered reasons why a woman might change her name.

I went to school with some kids whose last name was "Buttwin." Yeah. The son kept bitching about how his sisters could get married and change their names for free, but he was going to have to pay to get a legal change.

Agreed. That's the point people don't get. Feminism doesn't teach people that we have to flip everything or that everything that was mysogynistic is wrong. It's the reasoning that was wrong. I can walk a woman home, because I like her company, but if I walk her home because as a woman she's weak and shouldn't be out in public alone, then I'm an idiot, I mean... a mysogynist.

There are feminists who actually feel that being a housewife is wrong, but most feminists believe that your decisions should be yours and should be based on what you want and what your family wants and not based on your gender and what's expected of that gender. The difference is obvious.

Aside: Bottle, how am I doing as an AC?

Aside: Bottle, how am I doing as an AC?
Not too shabby. :D

I think that earlier I was misunderstood. In an earlier post I wrote something to the effect of "We should not feed bastard children to punish the parents of the bastards." Some have apparently misunderstood me to say that the children should not be fed by anyone. I can see that I may have been vague.

What I meant be "we" was welfare money. I do not want bastard children to be starved to death. Now I see why some thought I was trolling. I apologize for the confusion.

Right now there is little that is being done to discourage unwed teens from having babies and not putting them up for adoption. In fact, we are allowing them to do this by not making them financially responsible for their actions. We do this by paying for welfare programs that pay for the food. If we did not do this, then there would be less of these babies because the kids that the mother could not afford to feed would I imagine be adopted.

I as someone who is rather vehemently opposed to unplanned pregnancies and who has adopted kids in my family (sister and cousins), am opposed to having a single penny of my taxes going to in effect encouraging this sort of behavior that I find extremely immoral.

I hope that this post has clarified what I meant to indicate earlier.

I think that earlier I was misunderstood. In an earlier post I wrote something to the effect of "We should not feed bastard children to punish the parents of the bastards." Some have apparently misunderstood me to say that the children should not be fed by anyone. I can see that I may have been vague.

What I meant be "we" was welfare money. I do not want bastard children to be starved to death. Now I see why some thought I was trolling. I apologize for the confusion.

Right now there is little that is being done to discourage unwed teens from having babies and not putting them up for adoption. In fact, we are allowing them to do this by not making them financially responsible for their actions. We do this by paying for welfare programs that pay for the food. If we did not do this, then there would be less of these babies because the kids that the mother could not afford to feed would I imagine be adopted.

I as someone who is rather vehemently opposed to unplanned pregnancies and who has adopted kids in my family (sister and cousins), am opposed to having a single penny of my taxes going to in effect encouraging this sort of behavior that I find extremely immoral.

I hope that this post has clarified what I meant to indicate earlier.

I've never understood why this 'single mother is evil' meme is so prevalent in what I perceive as conservative christian US culture. What do these women do that is so vile and selfish? Is it the sex? Are they evil because they had unsafe sex at least once before marriage? What do you find extremely immoral? Most of the single moms I knew and know are too busy raising a child by themselves to engage in a lot of extremely immoral activity, so I am confused. Enlighten me.

I've never understood why this 'single mother is evil' meme is so prevalent in what I perceive as conservative christian US culture. What do these women do that is so vile and selfish? Is it the sex? Are they evil because they had unsafe sex at least once before marriage? What do you find extremely immoral? Most of the single moms I knew and know are too busy raising a child by themselves to engage in a lot of extremely immoral activity, so I am confused. Enlighten me.

Well, amusingly, many among them would deny her benefits, but would also deny her an abortion, and would not be willing to adopt her "lesser" offspring. There is nothing Christian about that particular behavior.

Well, amusingly, many among them would deny her benefits, but would also deny her an abortion, and would not be willing to adopt her "lesser" offspring. There is nothing Christian about that particular behavior.

This is where I agree with Spider Robinson: Unless you've adopted and raised, from birth to college, an unwanted child, STFU about being pro-life. Put up or shut up. You don't want women to have abortions, fine, but be part of the solution.

I've never understood why this 'single mother is evil' meme is so prevalent in what I perceive as conservative christian US culture. What do these women do that is so vile and selfish? Is it the sex? Are they evil because they had unsafe sex at least once before marriage? What do you find extremely immoral? Most of the single moms I knew and know are too busy raising a child by themselves to engage in a lot of extremely immoral activity, so I am confused. Enlighten me.

My father was raised by a "single mother". her husband died when my father was a baby.
She chose to raise her children herself and never had another man in her life or home til she died in her 90s.

My father grew up to be a solid,honest and succesful man by most people's standards.

Would he have been better off with a father-Maybe. In most cases,it is ideal for children to have two parents.
I never saw single mom as negative or "evil". I see someone that has their hands full and respect their strength and commitment.

My wife and I have our hands full with three healthy children.

I cant imagine the fortitute and commitment a single parent would need to raise a child or children without a partner.

An office I work for has several single moms working full time. My wife and I have a great relationship with them,donating car seats,changing table and the good condition clothes my kids have grown out of. And I have taken the same from them when their daughter's grew out of stuff and it was good for my daughter.
And its not charity as much as its thoughtful sharing and support thats appreciated by all parties.

This is where I agree with Spider Robinson: Unless you've adopted and raised, from birth to college, an unwanted child, STFU about being pro-life. Put up or shut up. You don't want women to have abortions, fine, but be part of the solution.

Many of them do adopt unwanted children. White, healthy, perfect children. Now put a little crack in that baby, and suddenly their willingness to put up declines a bit.

An office I work for has several single moms working full time. My wife and I have a great relationship with them,donating car seats,changing table and the good condition clothes my kids have grown out of. And I have taken the same from them when their daughter's grew out of stuff and it was good for my daughter.
And its not charity as much as its thoughtful sharing and support thats appreciated by all parties.

That was one thing that amazed me when my godson was born. His parents were still married, and... well, not rich, but doing pretty well. But friends of theirs kept coming over with all this stuff, saying their kids had grown out of it, nut it was still good. And Chris did the same. Very cool. Now, of course, her ex-husband refuses to file for unemployment because his child support will be taken out of it. Jackass.

Many of them do adopt unwanted children. White, healthy, perfect children. Now put a little crack in that baby, and suddenly their willingness to put up declines a bit.

Yeah. I sickens me. Of course, I'm sitting here refusing to have kids, so maybe I'm not the best person to be blathering about such things.

Marriage is a legal construct. It should have no relevance in the lives of individuals.

Marriage is a legal construct. It should have no relevance in the lives of individuals.

It has tons of relevance, that's why we need it as a legal construct. It's the sum of thousands of legal principles necessary to recognize the formation of individuals into a family. How could that not be relevant?

It has tons of relevance, that's why we need it as a legal construct. It's the sum of thousands of legal principles necessary to recognize the formation of individuals into a family. How could that not be relevant?
They're still just individuals who associate voluntarily.

My wife and I aren't legally married because we don't think the government needs to know the state of our personal life.

They're still just individuals who associate voluntarily.

My wife and I aren't legally married because we don't think the government needs to know the state of our personal life.

The problem with that is there are tons of associated things that you are denied without the legal relationship. You can create those contracts seperately, if you like. Joint ownership of property. Next of kin rights. Inheritance. And literally 100's of other things. They have value and if you ever need them, you'll either be glad you took the time or sorry you created that problem for yourself. There are pretty much no disadvantages to marriage. It's simply a legal agreement like a business partnership. And I'm sure you can see what a disadvantage it could be if you didn't formalize the structure of a company. There are some of the same disadvantages to not formalizing a family relationship.

The problem with that is there are tons of associated things that you are denied without the legal relationship. You can create those contracts seperately, if you like. Joint ownership of property. Next of kin rights. Inheritance. And literally 100's of other things. They have value and if you ever need them, you'll either be glad you took the time or sorry you created that problem for yourself. There are pretty much no disadvantages to marriage. It's simply a legal agreement like a business partnership. And I'm sure you can see what a disadvantage it could be if you didn't formalize the structure of a company. There are some of the same disadvantages to not formalizing a family relationship.
I live in a common law juridiction. If the government ever decides we're married, we're forced into the package deal.

As you say, it's possible for couples (or groups - let's be inclusive) to create the relevant contracts separately. But marriage hands you the whole package all at once, and in some jurisdictions it can happen without your consent (common law), or it's not possible to avoid some of the provisions (California).

Dunno if this has been suggested already (the thread's a bit too long to read in its entirety), but here's what i favor: the husband & wife each keep their own name, and the children get their mother's family name, with a patronym.

So, if John Smith & Jane Doe marry & have kids, They'll still be John Smith & Jane Doe, but the kids'll be called Tim Johnson Doe, Emily Johnsdaughter Doe, etc.

Agreed. That's the point people don't get. Feminism doesn't teach people that we have to flip everything or that everything that was mysogynistic is wrong. It's the reasoning that was wrong. I can walk a woman home, because I like her company, but if I walk her home because as a woman she's weak and shouldn't be out in public alone, then I'm an idiot, I mean... a mysogynist.
You should tell this to my bf. He wouldn't carry my case of beer for me becasue he reasoned it woudl be mysogynistic to do so.

I just thought it would be nice to do so. I mean, one stronger person could do one weaker person a favour by carrying their heavy beer case regardless of gender, right?

And does he really not realize the implications behind it?

Discuss.

No. I doubt he does.
Given how you describe him, I would say for him there are no implications at all.

It is very often we imprint our perceptions on others.

"I see X" so therefore you must it as well.

Very rarely is this the case.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but it also depends on what you are smoking.

Many things that started out as being oppressive to the Female of the species are now benign tradition. The former bile that was what they were long removed. My wife taking my last name...s she considered a possesion? Hardly, as matter of fact that typing that made me laugh out loud.

The tradition is however rooted in what would today be considered a vile practice.

Of course the classist practice of paying a Dowry is not quite dead and it certainly has more serious implications then name changing.

I think your in-law to be should simply understand that a choice has been made by the family to be and that choice was made the most earnest intentions of making all the members of the family as happy and equal as you felt possible.

and...if he doesnt like it, well that is too bad. The nature of marriage is that our children become less ours and more their own.

Cracker.

Many things that started out as being oppressive to the Female of the species are now benign tradition. The former bile that was what they were long removed.

You don't quite get it.

Many things that started out as benign traditions regarding women are actually oppresive. Many survive despite these attitudes long being discredited. Sexist paternalism is especially insidious.

Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380#dissent1), No. 05-380, (U.S. April 18, 2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting):

This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution--ideas that have long since been discredited. Compare, e.g., Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 422-423 (1908) ("protective" legislation imposing hours-of-work limitations on women only held permissible in view of women's "physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal funct"); [I]Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130, 141 (1873) (Bradley, J., concurring) ("Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. ... The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil[l] the noble and benign offices of wife and mother."), with United States v. Virginia, 518 U. S. 515, 533, 542, n. 12 (1996) (State may not rely on "overbroad generalizations" about the "talents, capacities, or preferences" of women; "[s]uch judgments have ... impeded ... women's progress toward full citizenship stature throughout our Nation's history"); Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 207 (1977) (gender-based Social Security classification rejected because it rested on "archaic and overbroad generalizations" "such as assumptions as to [women's] dependency" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

If I got married to my ladyfriend, she has said that she would not change her name, since she is the last of her family that she knows of. Personally, I don't really care, it's her name. I also don't really think the whole name changing thing is necessary, and it seems like a pain in the ass.

Though, this is going really out there into hypothetical land, I have no idea how it would work if we married and had a child. Whose name would the kid get? Hyphenation would not be an option, since I hate how cumbersome that is (plus, the hyphenated name would be 7 syllables).

An idea that struck me was maybe using a matrilineal? Meh. It's not an important issue right now and won't be for quite a while.

You don't quite get it.

Many things that started out as benign traditions regarding women are actually oppresive. Many survive despite these attitudes long being discredited. Sexist paternalism is especially insidious.


You dont get it.

They didnt start out as benign traditions...first and fore most because that is impossible. Something can not start out as a tradition.
Next, they originated as way of keeping a woman in their place, and changed into a societal tradition...leaving behind the actual oppression.

Such as a Woman taking her husbands last name hardly makes her property.

Sexist Paternalism...yes indeed...the insidious practice of the name change...and the countless lives lost to it.

I honestly wonder if you people really hear yourselves sometimes...

Across the globe infants are killed for being female, rape and brutalization in Africa is at a level never dreamed, AIDS and the actual practice of not allowing women to be informed of what it is so they dont know they could killed by it, Being beaten and killed for being the victim of sexual violence, or merely for speaking out of turn. And you have the unmittigated audacity to call the name change insidious.

I wonder if any of you children have ever suffered a day in your life, I doubt it as you struggle so greatly to find some cross to bear...anything to make you the victim...instead the spoiled children of privilege.

Heaven forbide Dem should have some modicum of understanding for a man of a previous generation who she has clearly said wouldnt dream of jackbooting a woman or women on the whole.
Clearly his emotional response to the situation is part of the insidious Paternal nature of a Father raised on a tradition I assure he has no clue the origin of, that bastard.

You dont get it.

They didnt start out as benign traditions...first and fore most because that is impossible. Something can not start out as a tradition.
Next, they originated as way of keeping a woman in their place, and changed into a societal tradition...leaving behind the actual oppression.

Such as a Woman taking her husbands last name hardly makes her property.

Sexist Paternalism...yes indeed...the insidious practice of the name change...and the countless lives lost to it.

I honestly wonder if you people really hear yourselves sometimes...

Across the globe infants are killed for being female, rape and brutalization in Africa is at a level never dreamed, AIDS and the actual practice of not allowing women to be informed of what it is so they dont know they could killed by it, Being beaten and killed for being the victim of sexual violence, or merely for speaking out of turn. And you have the unmittigated audacity to call the name change insidious.

I wonder if any of you children have ever suffered a day in your life, I doubt it as you struggle so greatly to find some cross to bear...anything to make you the victim...instead the spoiled children of privilege.

Heaven forbide Dem should have some modicum of understanding for a man of a previous generation who she has clearly said wouldnt dream of jackbooting a woman or women on the whole.
Clearly his emotional response to the situation is part of the insidious Paternal nature of a Father raised on a tradition I assure he has no clue the origin of, that bastard.

I love this argument since it's predicated on the admission that what you are doing is wrong, it's just not AS wrong as some things that go on. Yes, I'm punching you in the face but people in the world are hacked by machetes therefore, my oppressive behavior is barely comparable.

If you're acting badly, it doesn't matter if you can point to people who act worse. That argument stops making sense for most people after the second grade.

"I beat my wife, but, hey, at least I don't kill her like the people you SHOULD be complaining about."

EDIT: And before you start up with the same BS argument, I'm a man and I had an abusive father who thought that it was okay to physically beat your male children so long as you didn't injure the women. I've been homeless several times, the earliest at 15, because I dared to stop my father from punching me. What I learned from my father, who I have a great relationship with now, is that respect for anyone is predicated on respect for everyone. If you truly respect people you treat them as individuals. Your entier argument tries to defend avoiding treating people like individuals despite the mountains of evidence for why this is flawed.

But, hey, maybe I don't agree with you because my life was just too cushy. That's an excellent ad hominem fallacious argument that avoids actually defending your ludicrous position.

i think this name thing should be resolved from now on with a coin flip as part of the wedding ceremony- heads for females and tails for males.

i can't understand your fiance's father.

I wonder if any of you children have ever suffered a day in your life, I doubt it as you struggle so greatly to find some cross to bear...anything to make you the victim...instead the spoiled children of privilege.


Suffering . . . don't talk to me about suffering . . . [/Marvin]

You dont get it.

They didnt start out as benign traditions...first and fore most because that is impossible. Something can not start out as a tradition.
Next, they originated as way of keeping a woman in their place, and changed into a societal tradition...leaving behind the actual oppression.

Such as a Woman taking her husbands last name hardly makes her property.

Sexist Paternalism...yes indeed...the insidious practice of the name change...and the countless lives lost to it.

I honestly wonder if you people really hear yourselves sometimes...

Across the globe infants are killed for being female, rape and brutalization in Africa is at a level never dreamed, AIDS and the actual practice of not allowing women to be informed of what it is so they dont know they could killed by it, Being beaten and killed for being the victim of sexual violence, or merely for speaking out of turn. And you have the unmittigated audacity to call the name change insidious.

I wonder if any of you children have ever suffered a day in your life, I doubt it as you struggle so greatly to find some cross to bear...anything to make you the victim...instead the spoiled children of privilege.

Heaven forbide Dem should have some modicum of understanding for a man of a previous generation who she has clearly said wouldnt dream of jackbooting a woman or women on the whole.
Clearly his emotional response to the situation is part of the insidious Paternal nature of a Father raised on a tradition I assure he has no clue the origin of, that bastard.

You're forgetting that the choice to change one's name rests with the individual. The individual may choose to change their name, for whatever reason. That same individual may choose not to change their name, for whatever reason. Neither you, nor I, nor future in-laws have any say in such things.

Suffering . . . don't talk to me about suffering . . . [/Marvin]

Quit being a smartass and tell these nice folks that you don't care if I kept my name. Please.

I don't see what the big deal is with the whole name change thing. My mother kept her maiden name when she got married and so did one of my grandmothers, and neither my father nor my grandfather mind.

When I get married I wont insist either way and my future wife can pick to either take my name or keep hers. I wouldn't mind it either way, especially if she is already published or licensed in her field. I find hyphenation to be completely idiotic though, so I would rather not either of us do that.

Childrenwise, I'd personally rather they have my own name, mostly out of tradition. Its a tradition that harms no one and breaking conformity just for the sake of breaking conformity seems like a foolish thing to do for me. What I probably wont do is give my child a patronymic (I was born in Russia and according to my birth certificate my middle name is technically Aleksandrovich. Its not on any other legal document and no one in my family uses their patronymic either.)

You dont get it.

They didnt start out as benign traditions...first and fore most because that is impossible. Something can not start out as a tradition.
Next, they originated as way of keeping a woman in their place, and changed into a societal tradition...leaving behind the actual oppression.

Such as a Woman taking her husbands last name hardly makes her property.

Sexist Paternalism...yes indeed...the insidious practice of the name change...and the countless lives lost to it.

I honestly wonder if you people really hear yourselves sometimes...

Across the globe infants are killed for being female, rape and brutalization in Africa is at a level never dreamed, AIDS and the actual practice of not allowing women to be informed of what it is so they dont know they could killed by it, Being beaten and killed for being the victim of sexual violence, or merely for speaking out of turn. And you have the unmittigated audacity to call the name change insidious.

LOL. You really should unclench and think for a minute.

I made a overall point about gender roles. They are often allegedly benign and/or "traditional." This doesn't make them one wit less invidious.

I cited examples from the Supreme Court of both (1) paternalistic attitudes that formerly excused discrimination on the grounds of benign tradition and (2) modern recognition of the harmfulness of gender stereotypes.

I certainly wouldn't compare the question of last names to be in the same league as infanticide, rape, or domestic violence. You are the only one making that silly comparison.

I wonder if any of you children have ever suffered a day in your life, I doubt it as you struggle so greatly to find some cross to bear...anything to make you the victim...instead the spoiled children of privilege.

I happen to be a white male, so no, I don't think I have enormous cross to bear. I do think that all people suffer as the result of gender stereotypes and so-called "benign traditions."

As it happens, my wife and I both hypenated our names when we got married. As Dem explains, this was rather a hassle for me. Certainly no major cross to bear, but I still have credit card companies that insist on using my pre-married name.

Regardless, I would be careful on these forums to make assumptions about other posters and what they have or have not experienced. Some of us are older and/or wiser than you may think.

Heaven forbide Dem should have some modicum of understanding for a man of a previous generation who she has clearly said wouldnt dream of jackbooting a woman or women on the whole.
Clearly his emotional response to the situation is part of the insidious Paternal nature of a Father raised on a tradition I assure he has no clue the origin of, that bastard.

Heaven forbid that Dem's father-in-law adapt to progress. Yes, his insistence that she take his name is a legacy of sexist attitudes. Not the most injurious of attitudes, but sexist nonetheless.

People like you don't do anyone favors by alleging that discrimination is benign or is acceptable because it is tradition.

Heaven forbid that Dem's father-in-law adapt to progress. Yes, his insistence that she take his name is a legacy of sexist attitudes. Not the most injurious of attitudes, but sexist nonetheless.

To be fair, he isn't insisting on me taking his name. It's not my name that's he's worried about. It is my fiance changing his name as well that his father is opposed to. It is still a sexist attitude, but it is, in a sense, an example of Bottle's adage "patriarchy hurts men too. " My future father-in-law has accepted the fact that a woman may not simply take her husband's surname, but I don't think the idea that a man would consider changing his has ever crossed his mind before now.

People like you don't do anyone favors by alleging that discrimination is benign or is acceptable because it is tradition.

Indeed. And tradition for the sake of tradition is really never enough for me. In my mind, traditions are like everything else - they should be questioned. Our whole wedding (two more days!) is turning out to be a mix of traditional and non-traditional. We've kept the traditions we either liked or didn't mind (in the case of others really liking them) and made our own way for the rest.

Quit being a smartass and tell these nice folks that you don't care if I kept my name. Please.

Still not understanding why people thing I should care . . .

My wife took my last name, that doesn'y mean i'm a sexist pig or that she's a doormat. And if she didn't want to take my name i'd be ok with that but the only thing i didn't want in our family was for our kids to have hyphanated names. Has anyone thought about what happens when someone with a hyphanated name marries someone else with a hyphanted name or even a single name. Do you expect the next generation then to have 3 or 4 names in their last name?

Of course not, so the hyphanted name is something that can only viably last for one generation.


So thats why my wife and i decided our children will have my last name as their last name and my wife's maiden name as their middle name.

My wife took my last name, that doesn'y mean i'm a sexist pig or that she's a doormat. And if she didn't want to take my name i'd be ok with that but the only thing i didn't want in our family was for our kids to have hyphanated names. Has anyone thought about what happens when someone with a hyphanated name marries someone else with a hyphanted name or even a single name. Do you expect the next generation then to have 3 or 4 names in their last name?

I have a hyphenated last name. Allow me to answer your question:

When I get married, nothing will happen to my name.

Any children I bear or rear will either a) bear my surname or b) bear a surname that my partner and I have selected together. We select our children's first names and middle names, so why not surnames?

Childrenwise, I'd personally rather they have my own name, mostly out of tradition. Its a tradition that harms no one...

Seeing as how you are the one who would get to see your name passed on to your kids, don't you think maybe you are just a tiny bit biased here?

I can tell you, personally, that having my children bear my husband's surname but not my own WOULD harm me. It would be a relatively small harm, in the grand scheme of things, but it would be a harm.


and breaking conformity just for the sake of breaking conformity seems like a foolish thing to do for me.
You're advocating that people conform just for the sake of conformity, which seems equally foolish to me.

If you don't agree with what a tradition stands for, then why engage in that tradition?

Seeing as how you are the one who would get to see your name passed on to your kids, don't you think maybe you are just a tiny bit biased here?

I can tell you, personally, that having my children bear my husband's surname but not my own WOULD harm me. It would be a relatively small harm, in the grand scheme of things, but it would be a harm.


You're advocating that people conform just for the sake of conformity, which seems equally foolish to me.

If you don't agree with what a tradition stands for, then why engage in that tradition?

A little earlier in this thread, I postulated an idea, but nobody noticed. In my case, if I married my ladyfriend, and we had, say, a daughter, perhaps we'd give her the surname Annasdatter (a matrilineal, but with a nod to my Scandinavian heritage). Or if a son, Annasen/Annason (same thing).

A little earlier in this thread, I postulated an idea, but nobody noticed. In my case, if I married my ladyfriend, and we had, say, a daughter, perhaps we'd give her the surname Annasdatter (a matrilineal, but with a nod to my Scandinavian heritage). Or if a son, Annasen/Annason (same thing).
I certainly think these kinds of ideas are cool. I have no problem with people wanting to have their child's name reflect their heritage!

I simply think it's silly when people talk about making naming decisions based on gender. It's bull to assume that the man's name should be the surname because he's the man, or that the woman isn't harmed by giving up her name but the man would be harmed by giving up his. Each couple is as different as the individuals in the relationship. They shouldn't be defining their roles or the names of their children based on something as trivial as gender!

I certainly think these kinds of ideas are cool. I have no problem with people wanting to have their child's name reflect their heritage!

I simply think it's silly when people talk about making naming decisions based on gender. It's bull to assume that the man's name should be the surname because he's the man, or that the woman isn't harmed by giving up her name but the man would be harmed by giving up his. Each couple is as different as the individuals in the relationship. They shouldn't be defining their roles or the names of their children based on something as trivial as gender!

Yeah. I certainly wouldn't be insulted if my ladyfriend and I got married and she didn't change her name. In fact, because the last person with that name she knows and it means a lot to her, I'd go beyond that and say that I think she shouldn't change it.

As far as surnames for children... that's way off in the future. I've got a couple ideas like the one mentioned above, but really, I'm sure that when that time comes, my future wife (whether she is, hopefully, the woman I'm with right now, or not) and I will figure something out. I'm only 20, I've got time.